JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Smt. Rama Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the respondents despite the service of notice. 2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad, by which he has allowed amendment application filed by the respondents and the order dated 3.12.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad by which he has allowed the application for deletion of issue No. 2 and for the addition of some of the issues. 3. It appears that respondents filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad seeking a decree of injunction against the petitioner from executing a sale deed in respect of the property in question. The said suit was registered as Suit No. 208 of 1997. The petitioner contested the suit and filed written statement. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 28.1.2002. Against the said order, the respondents filed the appeal before the District Judge, Moradabad which was transferred to Additional District Judge, Court No. 2 Moradabad and was registered as appeal No. 14 of 2002. During the pendency of appeal, the respondents moved an application for the amendment in the plaint and also moved an application for the addition of some of the issues and deletion of issue No. 2. By the impugned order dated 12.9.2005, the appellate authority has allowed the amendment application on the ground that amendment sought was to elaborate the facts mentioned in the plaint and no new case has been made out. The application for the deletion of issue No. 2 and the addition of some of the issues has been allowed by the order dated 3.12.2005 on the ground that to decide the real controversy it is necessary to frame some new issues. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment application has been allowed just to delay the proceeding. She further submitted that the issue in the suit has been framed with the consent of the parties. The claim of the plaintiffs-respondents was that the property in dispute is a public property on which the Jatav Community had built a Dharmashala, therefore, the respondents have no right to sell such property. She further submitted that the issue in the suit has been framed with the consent of the parties. The claim of the plaintiffs-respondents was that the property in dispute is a public property on which the Jatav Community had built a Dharmashala, therefore, the respondents have no right to sell such property. She submitted that issue and submission of the plaintiffs have been examined in detail by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad on the basis of the evidences adduced and the same have been found incorrect, therefore, the suit has been dismissed. She submitted that a fresh issue framed by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad is based on no material and amounts to giving a fresh opportunity to the plaintiffs which is patently without jurisdiction. She further submitted that no reason has been given for framing the further issues. 5. In support of the contention reliance has been placed on the following decisions : (1) Swamy Atmananda and others v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others, 2005 (3) CCC 397 (SC). (2) Joginder Pal v. Raj Rani, AIR 1995 P&H 308 . (3) Dr. S.V.S. Ravi Krishna v. K. Sita Ramaiah and another, 2003 (3) CCC 431 (AP). (4) Kunju Kesavan v. M.M. Philip and others, AIR 1964 SC 164 . 6. I have perused the impugned orders and considered the rival submissions. 7. So far as the order of the Additional District Judge, Moradabad allowing the amendment application is concerned, I do not find any error. It is a settled principle of law that while considering the amendment application a liberal view should be taken and normally should be allowed unless its changes the nature of the suit. The Additional District Judge, Moradabad in its order allowing the amendment application has held that by the amendment only the facts mentioned in the plaint has been elaborated and the nature of the suit has not been changed. Therefore, in my view, no interference is called for in the order dated 12.9.2005 allowing the amendment in the plaint. 8. Now, coming to the validity of the order dated 3.12.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, let me examined the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Therefore, in my view, no interference is called for in the order dated 12.9.2005 allowing the amendment in the plaint. 8. Now, coming to the validity of the order dated 3.12.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, let me examined the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. In the case of Swamy Atmananda and others v. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and others (supra), the Apex Court held as follows : “If the parties went to the trial knowing fully well the real issues involved and adduced evidence in such a case without establishing prejudice, it would not be open to party to raise the question of non-framing of particular issue.” 10. In the case of Kunju Kesavan v. M.M. Philip and others (supra), the Supreme Court held as follows : “We do not think that the plaintiff in the case was taken by surprise. The notification must have been filed with the written statement, because there is nothing to show that it was tendered subsequently after obtaining the orders of the Court. The plaintiff was also cross-examined with respect to the address of Bhagavathi Valli, and the only witness examined on the side of the defendant deposed about the notification and was not cross-examined on this point. The plaintiff did not seek the permission of the Court to lead evidence on this point. Nor did he object to the reception of this evidence. Even before the District Judge, the contention was not that the evidence was wrongly received without a proper plea and issue but that the notification was not clear and there was doubt, whether this Bhagavathi Valli, was exempted or not. The parties went to trial, fully understanding the central fact whether the succession as laid down in the Ezhava Act applied to Bhagavathi Valli or not. The absence of an issue, therefore, did not lead to a mis-trial sufficient to vitiate the decision.......” 11. In the case of Joginder Pal v. Raj Rani (supra), the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as follows : “After having considered the rival submissions, I find substance in the argument of Mr. Puri that issue No. 1 is comprehensive enough to cover all the additional issues sought to be framed at the behest of the defendant-petitioner. In the case of Joginder Pal v. Raj Rani (supra), the Punjab & Haryana High Court held as follows : “After having considered the rival submissions, I find substance in the argument of Mr. Puri that issue No. 1 is comprehensive enough to cover all the additional issues sought to be framed at the behest of the defendant-petitioner. The trial Court has rightly observed that the additional issues sought to be framed by the defendant are unnecessary and that this was nothing but an attempt by the defendant to fill in the lacuna in his evidence.” 12. In the case case of Dr. S.V.S. Ravi Krishna v. K. Sita Ramaiah and another (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court held as follows : “.....It is pertinent to note that the scope of the suit or the nature of the litigation cannot be enlarged by requesting the Court to frame unnecessary issues by way of additional issues.” “.......When the very foundation of the suit is for declaration that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of the deceased Dr. Padma Priya, the first Issue is a comprehensive Issue and all these additional Issues which can be said to be ancillary issues separately need not be framed. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the none-framing of additional Issues by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District had not in any way prejudiced the rights of the Revision Petitioner.....” 13. In the present case the following issues have been framed with the consent of the parties : Þ1- D;k oknh okafNr fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk gdnkj gS\ 2- D;k Áfroknh }kjk ln~Hkkouk iwoZd mfpr /kujkfk vnk djds tk;nkn [kjhnh x;h gS ;fn gks] rks mldk ÁHkko\ 3- D;k okn vknsk&1 fu;e&8 lh0ih0lh0 ls ckf/kr gS\ 4- D;k okn esa vko;d i{kdkjksa dks i{kdkj u cuk;s tkus dk nks"k gS\ 5- oknhx.k ;fn gS rks fdl vuqrks"k dks ikus dk gdnkj gSAÞ 14. By the impugned order issue No. 2 has been deleted and the following issues have been added : Þokn fcUnq la[;k 6-&Dk fookfnr lEifIr tkVo leqnk; o tkVo fcjknjh ds yksxksa ds Á;ksx ds fy, lkoZtfud lEifIr gSA ;fn gk¡ rks ÁHkko\ 7- D;k fookfnr lEifIr ij dksbZ tkVo leqnk; dh /keZkkyk o iq[rk dq¡vk Fkk vkSj tkVo leqnk; ds yksx fookg o cPps ds tUe fnu ds volj ij bls fpjdky ls lkoZtfud lEifIr ds :i esa Á;ksx djrs jgs gSa\ 8- D;k oknhx.k o tkVo leqnk; ds yksx dCts ds vk/kkj ij fookfnr lEifIr ds Lokeh gSa\ 9- D;k oknhx.k dks lkoZtfud lEifIr ds laca/k esa tkVo leqnk; dh vksj ls cgSfl;r uqekbUnxku okn ;ksftr djus dk vf/kdkj gSA ;fn gk¡ rks ÁHkko\ 10- D;k fookfnr lEifIr esa dq¡vk chlksa lky ls iVk gqvk gS] tSlk fd vfr0 Áfrokn i= ds iSjk&6 esa dgk x;k gSA 11- D;k oknhx.k dk okn dky ckf/kr gS\ 12- D;k oknhx.k dk okn dCts ds vHkko esa pyus ;ksX; ugh gS\Þ 15. In my view the issue No. 1 is comprehensive in nature and is sufficient to decide the dispute between the parties. It covers additional issues framed by the appellate authority. Perusal of the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moradabad reveals that he has recorded the findings which covers the new issues framed by the appellate Court. In my view, there was no justification for framing the new issues and to in large the scope of the dispute involved in the suit. Framing of the new issues and remanding back the matter to the trial Court giving opportunity to the parties to adduce the evidence will only delay the decision in the matter. Therefore, I am of the view that the order of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Moradabad dated 3.12.2005 is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. The appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal No. 14 of 2002 on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned in accordance to law expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order by either of the parties. 16. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. ————