JUDGMENT : Mr. Deepak Maheshwari, J. This civil first appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendant to assail the judgment and decree dated 5th May, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 158/2013 titled as “Kamal v. Babu Lal” whereby, a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- has been decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff along with the interest amount @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the recovery of the money. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff-Kamal filed a suit against the defendant-Babu Lal alleging that on 9th February, 2013, the defendant, while entering into an agreement to sell his agricultural land measuring 8 biswas situated in village Eeras, Tehsil and District Bhilwara for a consideration of Rs. 24,00,000/- received a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- as an advance and executed an agreement to this effect in favour of the plaintiff but he failed to fulfil the agreement and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the money back along with interest amount of Rs.50,000/- @ 12% per annum interest. 3. The appellant-defendant filed the written statement denying the facts narrated above and mentioned that the plaintiff-respondent forcibly got the alleged agreement signed from him intimidating and threatening to get him implicated in some false criminal case. For this, he filed an FIR No. 194/2013 in PS Kotwali, Bhilwara against the plaintiff and his fellows. He also mentioned that he did not own any such agricultural land in Eeras (Bhilwara) and has never received any amount as an advance after entering into an agreement to sell it. 4. The learned trial court framed following issues on the basis of the above pleadings of the parties:- 1- vk;k oknh us izfroknh ls fnukad 09-02-2013 dks tokcnkos ds vfrfjDr dFku ds iSjk la0 12 esa of.kZr vk/kkjksa ij tcju fodz; bdjkj dk fu"iknu djk;k ftl dkj.k nkok [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ &izfroknh 2- vuqrks"k\ 5. After recording the evidence of both the sides, both the issues were found proved in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit was decreed, as mentioned above. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree mainly on the ground that the issues were not properly framed as per the facts mentioned in the pleadings of the parties. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has assailed the impugned judgment and decree mainly on the ground that the issues were not properly framed as per the facts mentioned in the pleadings of the parties. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit with a prayer to get the decree in his favour for Rs.16,50,000/- along with interest. But the learned trial Court has not put any burden of proof upon him to prove the facts alleged by him in the plaint. On the contrary, the issue has been framed in such a manner that the burden of proof has been placed upon the defendant. Actually, issue no.1 framed by the learned trial Court is an issue in rebuttal but the learned trial Court has failed to frame the basic issue which ought to have been required to be proved by the plaintiff-respondent. 7. He has also argued that during trial, an application was filed by the defendant-appellant on 13th February, 2014 under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment in the issues. But the same was rejected vide order dated 19th March, 2014 by learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has contended that the Court below has committed an jurisdictional error by not framing the proper and necessary issues and giving its findings on the questions which were not really involved in the issues. This has caused serious prejudice to the appellant-defendant. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has referred to the following judgments in his favour:- (1) Smt. Kaniz Fatima (deceased) & Anr. v. Shah Naim Ashraf reported in AIR 1983 Allahabad P. 450. (2) Hazari Lal v. Garvar Singh & Ors. reported in WLN (UC) 1974 P.126; (3) Smt. Indira Madani & Ors. v. Hola Ram (Deceased) by LRs & Ors. reported in AIR 2003 Delhi P.49; (4) Smt. Shanti v. Tarawati & Ors. reported in 1996 (2) Civil Court Cases P. 714 (P & H); and 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff has argued that the appellant-defendant has admitted in the written statement to have signed the sale agreement, while taking the defence that it was got signed by him under threat and coercion. Therefore, the duty to prove these allegations was cast upon him. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff has argued that the appellant-defendant has admitted in the written statement to have signed the sale agreement, while taking the defence that it was got signed by him under threat and coercion. Therefore, the duty to prove these allegations was cast upon him. Thus, the learned trial Court has rightly framed issue No.1 by placing the burden of proof upon the appellant-defendant. No prejudice has been caused to the appellant-defendant by framing the aforesaid issues. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is proper and in accordance with the evidence available on record. Hence, the learned counsel for the respondent 5 plaintiff has prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant defendant may be dismissed. 10. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by both the sides and perused the impugned judgment and decree as also the material available on record. 11. The respondent-plaintiff has filed the suit aforesaid with the prayer to pass decree against the appellant-defendant for a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- along with interest. He has mentioned in the Para Nos. 2 and 4 that, while executing the agreement to sell on 9th February, 2013, the appellant-defendant received a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- as an advance from the respondent plaintiff. As against this, the appellant-defendant has mentioned in the written statement that he did not own any land for which agreement for sale is alleged to has been executed by him. The plaintiff-Kamal Lodha along with some other persons has forcibly got the stamp papers signed by him threatening to implicate him in some criminal matter. He has also mentioned to file FIR No. 194/2013 for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 384 and 120-B IPC in this matter. 12. Taking all these facts into consideration, it is clear that the respondent-plaintiff has come forward to get the relief in the form of a decree for Rs.16,50,000/- alleging that the appellant-defendant received a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- as advance from him, while executing the sale agreement in his favour. 13. It is basic principle of law that the person, who alleges the facts needs to prove those facts, therefore, it was imperative for the learned trial Court to frame issue in such a manner that the burden to prove the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint may be cast upon him. 13. It is basic principle of law that the person, who alleges the facts needs to prove those facts, therefore, it was imperative for the learned trial Court to frame issue in such a manner that the burden to prove the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint may be cast upon him. Thus, it was duty of the plaintiff to prove these facts in order to get the relief in his favour as claimed by him in the plaint. However, the burden of proof could have automatically been shifted upon the appellant-defendant to rebut the issue by proving the facts he has taken in his defence in the written statement. But the burden should not have been placed initially upon the appellant-defendant to prove the facts which he has put forth in his defence. 14. Moreover, bare perusal of the only issue, framed by learned court below, shows that no mention has been made in it in respect of the claim put forth by the plaintiff to be decreed in his favour. So he has been put under no obligation to prove anything to get the decree. 15. In Smt. Kaniz Fatima (supra), the Court has observed as under:- “........ A party is supposed to lead evidence only on the issues framed in the suit. The other party can object and the Court can always refuse to record evidence which does not relate to the issues framed in the suit. Even if evidence has been led and brought on record, the Court will not be justified to look into that evidence for deciding a point not covered by the issues. Thus, it cannot be said that if the parties had led evidence in the case, it should be construed to cover all the pleas raised in the pleadings although no issue has been framed on that point. In the absence of proper issues covering all the pleas raised in pleadings, it cannot be said that the parties have exhausted all their evidence on all the pleas raised by them even though the same are not covered by the issues framed. Case remanded.” 16. In the absence of proper issues covering all the pleas raised in pleadings, it cannot be said that the parties have exhausted all their evidence on all the pleas raised by them even though the same are not covered by the issues framed. Case remanded.” 16. In Hazari Lal (supra), coordinate Bench of this Court, while coming to the conclusion that the issues have not been properly framed, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court below and remanded the case back to the trial Court, after framing some additional issues. 17. In Smt. Indira Madani (supra), the Court has come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, some additional issues are also required to be framed and thus, allowed the revision petition. 18. Similarly, in Smt. Shanti (supra), it was observed that if in the original written statement, there was a specific plea and no issue has been framed by the trial Court, the Appellate Court is not debarred from framing additional issues. 19. The appellant-defendant moved an application under Order 14, Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC to frame some additional issues but it is strange to note that the same was rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 19th March, 2014. In the opinion of this Court, it was the duty of the trial Court to frame the issues after applying its mind to the facts mentioned in the pleadings of both the sides as also in regard to the relief claimed. 20. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, applying the principles laid down in above cited precedents, this Court is of the view that the case should be remanded back to the learned trial Court with the direction to give sufficient opportunity to both the parties to adduce their evidence on the following additional issue:- “Whether, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to the defendant on 9th February, 2013 as an advance money for agreement to sale his 8 biswas agricultural land in favour of the plaintiff?” 21. The additional issue mentioned above appears necessary to has been framed so that the plaintiff, who came forward to claim the decree of the Court in his favour, can be asked to prove the facts alleged by him in the plaint. The additional issue mentioned above appears necessary to has been framed so that the plaintiff, who came forward to claim the decree of the Court in his favour, can be asked to prove the facts alleged by him in the plaint. As against this, initial burden of proof could not have been placed upon the appellant-defendant to prove the defence taken by him in the written statement and it could have really been an issue in rebuttal. A serious prejudice appears to have been caused to the appellant-defendant by not framing the issue in such a manner. 22. In the result, the instant first appeal filed by the appellant defendant is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 5th May, 2016 passed by the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court to decide the suit after recording evidence of both the sides on the additional issue mentioned above. 23. It is also made clear that the trial Court will be at liberty to frame any other issue, if pressed upon by any of the parties on the basis of their pleadings, which is found appropriate to be framed by the trial Court. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.