JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is being heard and finally decided, as the proceedings before the Trial Court are stalled, for a small controversy. 2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of such controversy are that the petitioners (plaintiffs) instituted a suit for partition qua the properties belonging to their common ancestor namely, Shri Kishan Lal Dave. 3. The defendant filed a written statement in the aforesaid suit and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court had framed the following eight (08) issues, on 11.10.2010:- ^^fook|d 1 & D;k oknhx.k dk e`rd fd'kuyky th nos dh la;qDr py o vpy lEifRr;ka eqUntZ vuqlwph ,d o nks esa vk/kk fgLlk gS\ oknhx.k& 2 & D;k izfroknh us vius e`rd y?kq Hkzkrk Jh jes'kpUnz nos dks viuk vke eq[r;kj fu;qDr dj eq[r;kjukek fnuakd 28-05-2004 lEikfnr o fu"ikfnr dj fn;k Fkk\ oknhx.k& 3 & D;k oknhx.k izfroknh ds fo:) fooknkLin la;qDr iSr`d lEifRr;ksa eqUntsZ vuqlwph ,o o nks dks vUrfjr u djus dh fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ oknhx.k@& 4 & D;k izfroknh e`rd fd'kuyky nos dh lEifRr fooknkLin lEifRr;ksa dk mudk nRrd iq= gksus ls ,d ek= Lokeh gS\ izfroknh@& 5 & D;k oknhx.k tks/kiqj esa lkB ?kjksa ds ckl esa fLFkr edku esa crkSj ykbZlsalh ds jg jgs gS\ izfroknh@& 6 & D;k uxj iksdj.k ftyk tSlyesj esa fLFkr vpy lEifRr;ksa ds laca/k esa orZeku U;k;ky; dks okn lquus dk {ks=kf/kdkj ugha gS\ izfroknh@& 7 & D;k izfroknh crkSj Lis'ky dksLV ds :0 25]000@& oknhx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ izfroknh@& 8 & vuqrks"k \** 4. The respective parties had led their evidence, arguments were heard and even written submissions had also been submitted by the parties and the matter was reserved for pronouncement of the judgment. The respective parties had led their evidence, arguments were heard and even written submissions had also been submitted by the parties and the matter was reserved for pronouncement of the judgment. Subsequent thereto, the learned Additional District No. 6, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") suo moto framed the following issues on 21.12.2015, while deleting some of the issues, and observed as under:- ^^1 & vk;k okni= ds vuqPNsn la0 1 esa of.kZr lEifr fd'kuyky nos dh gS\ ftEes oknh 2 & vk;k izfroknh nhid nos fd'kuyky nos dk fof/kor xksn iq= gS\ ftEes izfroknh@& 3 & vk;k LoxhZ; jes'k pUnz o LoxhZ; fpjath yky dk vuqPNsn la0 1 esa of.kZr lEifr esa dksbZ fgLlk ugha gS\ ftEes izfroknh@& 4 & vk;k izfroknh dk izkd`frd firk fpjath yky vius izkd`frd firk fd'ku yky nos dk ,dykSrk iq= gksrs gq, Hkh fof/k vuqlkj xksn tkus ds fy, l{ke Fkk\ ftEes izfroknh@& 5 & vk;k fd'ku yky vius ,d ek= iq= dks xksn nsus ds fy, fof/k vuqlkj l{ke Fkk\ ftEes izfroknh@& 6 & vk;k okn lquus dk {ks=kf/kdkj bl U;k;ky; dks ugha gS\ ftEes izfroknh@& 7 & vuqrks"k \ 5 & mijksDr iqu% jfpr fook|dksa ij oknh o izfroknh viuh lk{; izLrqr djuk pkgrs rks is'k dj ldrs gSA vU;Fkk bu fcUnqvksa ij cgl ds fy, fnuakd 04-01-2016 dks is'k gks vU;Fkk cgl lquh tk;sxhA** 6. Both the learned counsels for the parties are ad-idem that the issues as originally framed by the learned Trial Court on 11.10.2010 were in accordance with law and covered the entire controversy involved in the case and were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, therefore, there was no necessity or justification for framing the issues afresh, as has been done by the learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 21.12.2015. 7. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the set of issues framed by the learned Trial Court on 11.10.2010 and 21.12.2015. After carefully considering the same, in light of the pleadings of the parties, this Court finds that the issues, as already framed by the learned Trial Court on 11.10.2010 were coherent, comprehensive and in consonance with the pleadings of the parties, the same would envelop all the contours of the dispute or differences between the parties. 8. After carefully considering the same, in light of the pleadings of the parties, this Court finds that the issues, as already framed by the learned Trial Court on 11.10.2010 were coherent, comprehensive and in consonance with the pleadings of the parties, the same would envelop all the contours of the dispute or differences between the parties. 8. It is to be noticed that the parties had led their evidence and advanced their arguments based on the issues, as already framed by the learned Trial Court; and as such, it was not proper on the part of the learned Trial Court to re-frame or re-cast the issues afresh. By way of revamping the issues, the Court below has brought the suit proceedings to the ground zero. The provisions of Order 14 of the Code permits recalibration or fine tuning the issues, even while passing the final Judgment, but the complete reconstruction of the issues at this stage would virtually lead to retrial. Such transformation is against the scope and spirit of the provisions and procedure known to law. It is like pressing the 'refresh' button of the computer, after the assignment is complete. 9. A bare look at the subsequently framed issues reveals that the issue No. 1, that the subject property belongs to Kishan Lal Dave is superfluous. It is nobody's case that the properties mentioned in the plaint do not belong to Kishan Lal Dave. If such issue is permitted to remain, it would not only change the nature of suit, but would require leading of fresh and unwarranted evidence. Similarly, issue No. 2, 4 and 5 relate to validity of adoption of Chirangi Lal and Deepak; which are otherwise covered under the comprehensively framed issue No. 1 and 4. As such, the issues as re-framed would complicate the case and lead to protraction of an otherwise decided case; than simplifying and solving the dispute. 10. The order impugned dated 21.12.2015 and framing of the additional issues, while deleting some of the already framed issues cannot be tolerated on the touchstone of the relevant provisions and the principles governing the procedure. 11. Resultantly, the present writ petition is allowed; and the order impugned dated 21.12.2015 along with the issues framed is quashed and set aside. 12. Trial Court to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law.