JUDGMENT 1. - A challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been made to the order dated 23.10.2013, passed by the Civil Judge (SD) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandikui, District Dausa, dismissing an application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') for framing an additional issue. 2. The facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit praying for cancellation of sale-deed dated 22.12.2007 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Baswa and further prayed that the defendant No. 1, now respondent No. 2 in the present petition, be restrained by way of a permanent injunction from interfering in any event whatsoever in the Baara (enclosure) stated to be in the possession of the plaintiffs. On service of summons in the suit, the defendant Prakash Chand Sharma filed his written statement of denial. It was stated that Gram Panchayat, Badiyal Khurd, Baswa had issued a patta for parcel of land admearusing 300 sq. yards on 05.02.1987. Consequent to which the defendant was the lawful owner of the property in issue and in possession thereof. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, six issues were framed by the trial court. Issue No. 2 relevant to this petition is as under : " 2- vk;k mDr oknxzLr oknh dh Hkwfe dks vrhr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ljiap xzke iapk;r cfM;ky dks ugha gksus ls izfroknh la0 1 ds gd esa fu"ikfnr fodz; i= fn0 22&12&2007 oknh ds gdksa o vf/kdkjksa ij ckfry o csvlj gSA " 3. Following the striking of issues, evidence of the parties was recorded. Thereafter on 27.09.2013 the plaintiffs moved an application before the trial court for framing of an additional issue as to whether Gram Panchayat, Badiyal, had unlawfully issued the patta dated 05.02.1987 to the defendant. It was prayed that consequently the additional issue be framed. 4. It goes without saying that with the framing of an additional issue, trial on the newly framed issue would have been necessitated and the evidence of the witnesses both for the plaintiffs and the defendant recorded. It was prayed that consequently the additional issue be framed. 4. It goes without saying that with the framing of an additional issue, trial on the newly framed issue would have been necessitated and the evidence of the witnesses both for the plaintiffs and the defendant recorded. On the matter coming up before the trial court, the learned trial court dismissed the application for framing of an additional issue under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC inter alia on the ground that the application for framing of an additional issue had been filed belatedly subsequent to the recording of evidence of the parties before it. 5. Counsel for the plaintiffs has submitted that the impugned order dated 23.10.2013, passed by the trial court is absolutely perverse inasmuch as the trial court has held that the additional issue as sought by the plaintiffs could not be framed for absence of requisite pleadings in respect thereof. Reference has been made to para 2 of the suit laid by the plaintiffs wherein it was averred that if any patta had been issued by Gram Panchayat, Badiyal in favour of the defendant, it was wholly illegal and without authority of law. Counsel submits that the averment was denied by the defendant in his written statement and consequently an issue ought to have been struck on the question as to whether the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat was valid and in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. 6. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiffs. 7. In my considered opinion, issue No. 2 as struck by the trial court and recorded hereinabove will-nilly relates to the question as to whether the Gram Panchayat, Badiyal had the right and authority to transfer and convey the land purportedly in possession of the plaintiffs to the defendant No. 1 consequent to which the patta then issued by the Gram Panchayat, Badiyal on 05.02.1987 came to be registered with the Sub-Registrar on 22.12.2007 and whether the patta in issue was ineffective and non-binding on the rights of the plaintiffs for reasons stated and so established from the evidence on record. In my considered opinion, for the determination of issue No. 2 on which evidence of the parties must have been inevitably laid before the trial court, the trial court will be required to adjudicate as to whether the patta issued in favour of the defendant was legal, valid and in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Consequently, non-framing of the additional issue based on pleadings of the parties of which the plaintiffs are aggrieved is of no event. 8. I would therefore dispose of the writ petition directing the learned trial court that while determining issue No. 2 it must address the legality and validity of the patta issued by the Gram Panchayat, Badiyal to the defendant No. 1 which was subsequently duly registered with the Sub-Registrar on 22.12.2007 9. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application needs no address in the facts of the petition itself being disposed of.Order accordingly. *******