JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 26.04.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners purportedly under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC has been rejected. 2. A suit was filed by the respondents seeking specific performance of contract by impleading Smt. Jaidai, Kewal Singh and alleged subsequent purchasers Sahdev and Shailendra; during pendency of the suit Smt. Jaidai died and an application was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 22, Rule 3 CPC, inter alia, indicating that as the defendant No. 1 - Smt. Jaidai has expired, an endorsement in this regard be made against her name, as she is not survived by any legal representatives; the application was allowed by order dated 01.08.2013. 3. Whereafter, the present application was filed by the petitioners - purchasers, inter alia, seeking framing of two additional issues regarding effect of death of Smt. Jaidai and the status of defendant No. 2, the power of attorney holder of Smt. Jaidai. 4. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that for seeking abatement of suit, application under other provisions of CPC could be filed and for that purpose there was no requirement to frame issue. Regarding another issue, the trial court came to the conclusion that as the issue pertains to execution of agreement to sale dated 19.01.2009 by the power of attorney holder in favour of the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that his presence was not necessary and rejected the application. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court fell in error in rejecting the application seeking framing of additional issues, which arose on account of subsequent event of death of Smt. Jaidai. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record of the writ petition. 7. The framing of issues essentially has to be done based on the pleadings of the parties. Admittedly, subsequent to the death of Smt. Jaidai, the written statement has not been amended by the petitioners seeking to take pleas, based on which, the application under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of additional issues was filed and, therefore, the issues did not arise for consideration of the trial court. Admittedly, subsequent to the death of Smt. Jaidai, the written statement has not been amended by the petitioners seeking to take pleas, based on which, the application under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of additional issues was filed and, therefore, the issues did not arise for consideration of the trial court. The order passed by the trial court observing that the plea regarding abatement could always be raised under other provisions of CPC and that presence of defendant No. 2 cannot be said to be unnecessary, also cannot be said to be erroneous. 8. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******