ORDER : P.S. Rana, J. Present review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC for review of order dated 25.02.2016 passed in CMPMO No. 81 of 2015 title Hussain Mohammed & Others vs. Gurdas. Brief facts of the case: 2. Plaintiff Gurdas filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the land measuring 0-24-27 hectares comprised in Khewat No.14 min Khatauni No.48 min Khasra Nos. 398, 399, 400 to 402, 404 and 405 as recorded in jamabandi for the year 1995-96 situated in Mauza Kotla Tehsil Amb Distt. Una (H.P.). Plaintiff sought declaration that the entry appearing in the name of defendants in the column of ownership and cultivation showing them to be exclusive owner in possession of the suit land is wrong, illegal, void ab-initio and has no effect on the right, title or interest of the plaintiff. Plaintiff also sought declaration that defendants be restrained from causing any sort of interference i.e. changing the nature and character and cutting and removing the trees and from alienating the suit land in any manner and in alternative plaintiff sought relief of possession also. 3. Per contra written statement filed on behalf of defendants/ petitioners pleaded therein that suit is not maintainable and plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit. It is pleaded that suit is not filed within time. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present suit. It is pleaded that jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred. It is pleaded that the suit land is coming in possession of the defendants since long since the time of their ancestors and it is pleaded that the ancestors of defendants were non-occupancy tenants. Prayer for dismissal of the suit sought. 4. As per pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed following issues on dated 20.11.1999 and 28.7.2010: 1. Whether the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? ……OPP. 2. Whether entry in favour of defendants in the revenue record showing them as exclusive owners in possession of the suit land is wrong and illegal as alleged? …….OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? …….OPP. 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief of possession of the suit land? …….OPP. ……OPP. 2. Whether entry in favour of defendants in the revenue record showing them as exclusive owners in possession of the suit land is wrong and illegal as alleged? …….OPP. 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? …….OPP. 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief of possession of the suit land? …….OPP. 4A. Whether defendants are in settled possession of the suit land as alleged? …….OPD. 5. Whether suit is not maintainable? …….OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file this suit? .…..OPD. 7. Whether suit is within time? ….OPP. 8. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? ….OPD. 9. Whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred as alleged? ……OPD. 10. Relief. 5. Learned Trial Court decided issues Nos. 1 to 4 in negative and learned trial Court decided issues Nos. 4A and 5 in affirmative. Learned trial Court decided issue No. 7 in negative and learned trial Court decided issue No. 8 in affirmative. Learned trial Court held issue No. 6 not pressed and learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court dated 19th August 2010 plaintiff Gurdas filed appeal RBT No. 71/2013/2010. Learned First Appellate Court on dated 20th February 2015 framed following additional issues: 1(a). Whether plaintiff was tenant at Will on payment of rent in respect of the suit land, as alleged. ….OPP. 1(b). Whether predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was inducted as non-occupancy tenant on payment of rent qua the suit land, as alleged? ….OPP. 5(a). Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? …….OPD. 7. Learned First Appellate Court directed the learned Trial Court to give findings in accordance with law relating to additional issues and learned First Appellate Court further directed the learned Trial Court to return the findings to the Appellate Court on or before 31.08.2015. 8. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 20th February 2015 of learned First Appellate Court petitioners/defendants Hussain Mohammed and others filed CMPMO No.81 of 2015 before H. P. High Court and on 25.02.2016 H. P. High Court ordered that evidence will be recorded by learned First Appellate Court himself upon additional issues framed by learned First Appellate Court and order of learned First Appellate Court was modified to this extent only. It was further ordered by the H. P. High Court that learned First Appellate Court will give maximum two chances to each of the parties to produce their evidence in respect of issues to be proved by respective parties as appeal is pending since 2010 and is old targetted appeal. It was further ordered by the H. P. High Court that learned First Appellate Court will dispose of the appeal within three months after receipt of the file. It was further ordered by the H. P. High Court that file of learned First Appellate Court would be immediately transmitted to the learned First Appellate Court alongwith certified copy of the order. 9. Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 25th February 2016 petitioners/defendants filed present review petition. 10. Court heard learned Advocates appearing on behalf of petitioners/defendants and non-petitioner/plaintiff and Court also perused the entire records carefully. 11. Following points arise for determination in the present review petition: (1) Whether review petition filed by the petitioners/ defendants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of review petition? (2) Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons: 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that there was no need to frame additional issue i.e. issue No.1(a) by learned First Appellate Court because parties have led evidence knowing fully well the case of each other and on this ground review petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that as per Order XIV of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by other. As per Order XIV Rule 3 each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other party shall form subject of distinct issue. In the present case plaintiff has pleaded status of tenancy at will on payment of rent and defendants have disputed status of plaintiff in written statement. There is dispute inter se parties relating to status of tenancy. It is held that learned First Appellate Court has rightly framed additional issues as per pleading of parties. It is held that issue of tenancy is issue of fact and not issue of law. There is dispute inter se parties relating to status of tenancy. It is held that learned First Appellate Court has rightly framed additional issues as per pleading of parties. It is held that issue of tenancy is issue of fact and not issue of law. It is well settled law that when issue of fact is framed by the Court then opportunity should be given to both parties to adduce evidence in affirmative and in rebuttal. It was held in case reported in AIR 1983 Allahabad 450 title Kaniz Fatima and another vs. Shah Naim Ashraf DB that if no issue is framed on question of fact then recording of finding thereon is impermissible. Court is of the opinion that framing of additional issue No.1(a) as framed by learned First Appellate Court is essential in the present case in order to decide the appeal properly and effectively and in order to impart substantial justice inter se parties. 13. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that there was no need to frame additional issue i.e. issue No.1(b) by learned First Appellate Court because issue No.1(b) is covered under issue No.4(a) is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Court has carefully perused issues No.1(b) and 4(a). Issues No. 1(b) and 4(a) are two distinct issues. Issue No.4(a) is relating to settled possession and issue No.1(b) is relating to induction of non-occupancy tenancy. It is held that concept of settled possession and concept of induction of non-occupancy tenancy are two different concepts under the provisions of law. It is held that learned First Appellate Court has rightly framed issue No.1(b) on the basis of pleading of parties in the ends of justice. 14. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that there was no need to frame additional issue i.e. issue No.5(a) by learned First Appellate Court relating to non-joinder of necessary parties is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that learned Trial Court did not frame any issue relating to non-joinder of necessary parties. It is proved on record that plea of non-joinder of necessary parties was pleaded in the pleadings. It is well settled law that suit could be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties as per Order 1 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 vide amendment w.e.f. 01.02.1977. It is proved on record that plea of non-joinder of necessary parties was pleaded in the pleadings. It is well settled law that suit could be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties as per Order 1 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 vide amendment w.e.f. 01.02.1977. It is held that learned First Appellate Court has rightly framed additional issue of non-joinder of necessary parties in the present case in order to decide the appeal properly and effectively and in order to impart substantial justice inter se parties. 15. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners that evidence already adduced was sufficient to decide the case and there was no need to give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence upon additional issues is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that issues are of two kinds (i) Issues of law (ii) Issues of fact. It is well settled law that issues of law can be addressed directly without adducing any oral and documentary evidence. It is well settled law that when issues of fact are framed then Court is under legal obligation to give opportunity to both parties to lead evidence in affirmative and in rebuttal to prove issues of fact because it is well settled law that issues of fact is always proved by way of adducing oral and documentary evidence by the parties. In the present case additional issues framed by learned First Appellate Court are issues of fact and are not issues of law. It is well settled law that object of framing of issues is to direct attention of the parties to the main question of fact or law to be decided. Even as per Order XIV Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 Court may at any time before passing decree can amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as Court thinks fit for determining the matter in controversy between parties. It is well settled law that for proper determination of the matter in controversy between parties duty is cast upon the Court to frame proper issues before recording decision on the point. 16. A review is not a routine procedure. Court cannot review its earlier order unless Court is satisfied that material error manifest on the face of the record occurred. 16. A review is not a routine procedure. Court cannot review its earlier order unless Court is satisfied that material error manifest on the face of the record occurred. It is well settled law that there should be an error apparent on the face of the record to review earlier decision. It is well settled law that review does not permit the Court to rehear the matter as an appellate forum. Review is permissible only when there is miscarriage of justice or when error is apparent on the face of record. It is held that there is no miscarriage of justice in the present case. It is held that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the previous order dated 25.02.2016 in the present case. See AIR 1980 Apex Court 2041 title Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs. Union of India & Others. See AIR 1975 Apex Court 1500 title Chandra Kanta and another vs. Sheik Habib. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2 (Final Order). 17. In view of findings upon point No.1 above review petition is dismissed. Certified copy of the order be transmitted to learned First Appellate Court and learned Trial Court for compliance. No order as to costs. Review Petition No. 31/2016 is disposed of. Pending applications if any also disposed of.