JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 26.02.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by respondent No. 4 under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC has been accepted and two additional issues have been framed.Petitioner - Smt. Dakhu filed a suit for partition and injunction against Bhura Ram, Sukha Ram and Kesa Ram, inter alia, claiming right in the joint family property being daughter of Naina Ram - brother of Bhura Ram and late Anna Ram (father of Sukha Ram). 2. During the pendency of the suit respondent - Heera Ram filed application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC, inter alia, claiming that he was adopted son of Naina Ram and, therefore, was a necessary party to the suit.The said application was rejected by the trial court.In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4556/2010 filed by said Heera Ram, the writ petition was allowed and Heera Ram was directed to be impleaded as party defendant to the suit. 3. Heera Ram filed a written statement and whereafter filed application under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of additional issues based on the pleas raised by him in the written statement. 4. The respondent No. 4 proposed that issue as to whether on account of adoption of respondent No. 4, the property in question being in possession of said respondent No. 4 for over 40 years, the plaintiff was not entitled to partition needs to be raised. 5. The application was opposed by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that in the present suit the respondent No. 4 cannot claim declaration regarding his adoption, neither any counter claim has been filed nor the Court fees has been paid and, therefore, such issue cannot be framed. 6. The trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that as the respondent No. 4 has been impleaded as party pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court and as the adoption as well as possession of the said defendant was not proved at this stage, the issues in this regard, need to be framed and framed issues as to whether the defendant No. 4 was adopted son of Naina Ram and whether he was in possession of the suit property for over 40 years and its effect. 7. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in accepting the application for framing additional issues; it was submitted that by framing the issue pertaining to the adoption, the scope of the suit filed by the petitioner stands enlarged, which vitiates the order passed by the trial court; it was submitted that merely because the respondent has taken a plea in the written statement claiming himself to be the adopted son, it is not necessary that the issue in this regard has to be struck in the present case as the respondent No. 4 has neither filed any counter claim nor filed any separate suit for the said purpose and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.Reliance was placed on Preetam Singh @ Prretam Das v. Chandra Prakash and Anr. : 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC 372. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material placed on record. 9. The petitioner filed suit for partition, inter alia, claiming that the suit property was joint among Naina Ram - her father, Bhura Ram and Anna Ram her uncles; while Bhura Ram was impleaded as party, Sukha Ram as legal representative of Anna Ram was impleaded as party and relief of partition and injunction was, inter alia, sought against them; the respondent No. 4 - Heera Ram claiming himself to be adopted son of deceased Naina Ram - father of the petitioner, filed application under Order I, Rule 10 CPC, which application was rejected by the trial court, however, the writ petition filed by Heera Ram was accepted and he was impleaded as a party defendant; Heera Ram filed his written statement and claimed right in the suit property based on the fact that he was adopted son of Naina Ram and also sought to displace the claim made by the plaintiff as daughter of Naina Ram. 10. 10. The filing of the written statement by Heera Ram based on his status as adopted son of Naina Ram definitely gave rise to additional issues so as to determine the right of the plaintiff and/or respondent No. 4 - Heera Ram; the trial court on its own based on the written statement should have framed additional issues, however, when on an application filed by Heera Ram under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC the trial court after hearing the parties framed the issues pertaining to the adoption and possession of Heera Ram, it cannot be said that the said issues did not arise from the pleadings of the parties. 11. The plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the framing of issue pertaining to adoption would alter the scope of the suit for partition has no basis, if a party seeks to displace the plaintiff and/or claim a share in the property based on his status as a member of the family based on adoption and/or on account of property having been bequeathed to him, the said right has to be determined before a decree for partition can be passed by the trial court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the scope of the suit would get altered on account of framing of the issue as in any case the said aspect was required to be deliberated upon by the trial court before a finding on the right of the plaintiff could be recorded.So far as the judgment in the case of Preetam Singh (supra) is concerned, the matter arose out of a case where the issues were framed beyond the pleadings and this Court came to the conclusion that issues unconnected with the dispute cannot be framed. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 12. In view thereof, there is no substance in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******