JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. The plaintiff-petitioner has instituted original suit no.450 of 2001 for injunction, in respect of the suit property, which is assigned municipal no.4/276, Nawabganj and has been given the name 'Kailash'. The defendants-respondents have appeared and have filed a counter claim stating therein that the defendants-respondents have been given half share of the suit property, pursuant to the will executed by Smt. Kailash Srivastava on 19.10.1962. 2. The trial court has framed 6 issues on the basis of pleadings made in the suit and another 7 issues on the basis of averments contained in the counter claim. The first issue settled upon the counter claim is as to whether J.K. Srivastava and Hari Krishna Srivastava have been given half right in the suit property in question on the basis of will dated 19.10.1962 executed by Smt. Kailash Srivastava. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC with the prayer that an additional issue be framed on the basis of pleadings contained in the counter claim. 4. Sri Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that half of the suit property has been assigned to J.K. Srivastava and Hari Krishna Srivastava under the? will dated 19.10.1962, but the same is conditional and is dependent upon performance of certain functions on their part, and thereafter it has to be seen as to whether such obligations have been performed? It is, therefore, contended that an additional issue be framed as to whether the defendants are entitled to the relief of partition without first establishing their right over the suit property in appropriate proceedings? 5. Sri P.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the issue no.1 framed on the basis of counter claim is wide enough and admits all question with regard to performance of obligations, if any, imposed upon the legatee/petitioner under the will, and for such purposes, no additional issues are required to be framed. 6. Having considered the respective submissions advanced, this Court finds that the trial court while dealing with the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner has clearly provided that all questions, which are sought to be raised and for which an additional issue is claimed, are included in the existing issue no.1, and therefore, there is no requirement of framing of an additional issue. This Court also finds that the issue no.1, framed on the basis of counter claim as to whether J.K. Srivastava and Hari Krishna Srivastava have been given half right over house no.4/276 pursuant to will dated 19.10.1962, is wide enough and in case any condition has been stipulated in the will, the performance of it would be open to be examined on the issue already framed, and therefore, it covers the controversy, which is sought to be raised, in this regard. This Court, in such circumstances, finds that no further issues are required to be framed as is being claimed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the present writ petition. 7. In view of the observations made above, this Court finds that no further issues are required to be framed and the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.