ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.10.2016 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) North No. 1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') whereby the petitioners' application under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment in the issues has been turned down. 2. The facts in brief, appertain to the writ petition are that the respondent - plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners - defendants in the year-1993. 3. In response to the said suit, while filing written statement, the petitioners - defendants also filed a cross-suit, seeking certain relief of possession etc. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court had framed thirteen issues on 20.04.2001. Petitioners - defendants had filed an application under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 05.08.2016 and raised various objections in relation to the issues already framed. It was also prayed that the issue No. 4 be framed as under :- ^^vk;k izfroknhx.k oknxzLr pcwrjs dk dCtk] oknh }kjk fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dks gVok dj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\** 5. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioners has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 14.10.2016, exhaustively dealing with the contentions of rival parties on each of the proposed amendments. 6. Mr. Saruparia, learned counsel for the petitioners assailing the order dated 14.10.2016, at the outset confined his writ petition qua Issues No. 1,4 and 10 only, which are quoted below :- 1- D;k oknh dh gjs jax dh tk;nkn ntZ uD'kk layXu nkok gktk ij cjfcuk; izkboslh esa n[ky gksus o cjfcuk; bZdjkj fnuakd 28-08-1955 izfroknh dks f[kM+dh] tkyh o ckjh;ka vkfn j[kus dk vf/kdkj ugha gS vkSj bUgsa cUn djkus dk oknh vf/kdkjh gS\ & oknh 4- D;k izfroknh }kjk vius dzksllqV esa f[kykQ oknh dCts;kch dk vuqrks'k ugha ekaxrs gqos f[kykQ oknh ds gqDe bZErukbZ tkjh djus dk vf/kdkjh gS o izfroknh dh fnoky ls fdruh pkSM+kbZ rd dk irkehj ugha cukus ckcr f[kykQ oknh gqDe bZErukbZ tkjh djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ & izfroknh 10- D;k bZdjkj fnuakd 28-08-1955 izfroknh y{ehyky dh vkSj ls rdehy fd;k x;k gS\ & oknh\ 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that issues No. 1 and 10, contains a reference of agreement dated 28.08.1955; which has been held to be in admissible in evidence, vide order dated 13.05.2016, and the same has attained finality. According to Mr. Saruparia, since the agreement dated 28.08.1955 has been held inadmissible, any issue revolving around such agreement deserves to be deleted or suitably modified. He contended that while deciding the petitioners' application the court below has completely misread the said judgment, vide which the document has been held inadmissible reading the date of such order to be 13.05.2006, whereas the same was 13.05.2016. 8. He added that such mis-reading of the date of order to be 13.05.2016, has resulted in reaching to an erroneous conclusion that petitioners' application was belated. 9. In relation to issue No. 4, Mr. Saruparia submitted that the said issue leads to confusion, rather than formulating the points of determination involved in the case. He submitted that the Court below has not properly read the prayers made in the cross-suit to conjecture that the petitioners have not sought prayer of possession, whereas in first prayer itself the petitioners had sought possession of the disputed 'Chabutra'. 10. In light of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the court below has rejected petitioners' application cursorily holding that the same had been filed for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Deelip Kawadia, supporting the impugned order, submitted that the issues in question had been framed way back in 2001, on the basis of pleadings of the rival parties; and that the petitioners had earlier also moved an application dated 09.05.2003, seeking amendment in the issues, which application had been rejected by the Trial Court, vide its order dated 31.07.2006. He invited the attention of this Court towards the documents, filed on 13.09.2017, which includes a copy of the application and the order thereupon, and submitted that the present application filed by petitioners is firstly barred by res judicata, inasmuch as almost all the amendments had been sought by the petitioners, in their earlier application filed in year 2003, which application had been rejected. In the alternative, he submitted that if certain issues were omitted or left to be taken while submitting in the earlier application dated 09.05.2003, they can not be suggested now and such application is barred, on the principle of estoppel. 12. According to him, the opportunity to seek the present amendments in the issues was available to the petitioners even at the time of filing of first application on 09.05.2003. And the petitioners having failed to propose these issues, are estopped in law, to make such request, after 14 years of the prayer already made & turned down. 13. With respect to the argument of the petitioner regarding agreement dated 28.08.1955, Mr. Kawadia submitted that merely because a document has been held to be inadmissible in evidence, the issues are not required to be re-cast. He submitted that it is true that the such document dated 28.08.1955 has been held to be inadmissible, but the effect of such contingency will be definitely looked into by the Trial Court, while finally deciding the case. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the petitioners have positively claimed possession of the disputed 'Chabutra' while in the alternatively praying that in the event Court does not grant the said relief, at least a decree of injunction be granted in their favour. 15. A comparative reading of clause-d and alternative prayer in the plaint reveals that the petitioners, in any case had sought possession of the disputed 'chabutra', which fact has not come out clearly in the issues framed by the Court below and it needs to be re framed. 16. At this juncture, Mr. Saruparia, submits that the issue No. 4 as framed by the Trial Court on 20.04.2001 has been framed on the basis of his pleadings and request and the burden of its proof too has been kept on the petitioners - defendants. Pointing out these facts he prayed that issue No. 4 be deleted and in place thereof, the following issue may be framed :- vk;k izfroknhx.k oknxzLr pcwrjs dk dCtk] oknh }kjk fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dks gVok dj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 17. Pointing out these facts he prayed that issue No. 4 be deleted and in place thereof, the following issue may be framed :- vk;k izfroknhx.k oknxzLr pcwrjs dk dCtk] oknh }kjk fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dks gVok dj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 17. Having heard the rival counsels and perusing the pleadings and issues framed by the court below, this Court is of the firm view that issue No. 4 as framed by the Trial Court creates more confusion rather than crisply formulating the points of determination. Hence, in view of concession made by Mr. Saruparia, the issue No. 4, which has been framed at the behest of the petitioners - defendants, burden of proving the same has been fixed upon the petitioners; as framed by the Trial Court is deleted and in place whereof, the issue No. 4 as suggested by the petitioners is framed. The issue No. 4 thus shall be substituted by the following issue :- vk;k izfroknhx.k oknxzLr pcwrjs dk dCtk] oknh }kjk fd;s x;s fuekZ.k dks gVok dj izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 18. Adverting to the other contention of the petitioners, in relation to deletion of the reference of agreement dated 28.08.1955 in issues No. 1 & 10, this Court is of the considered opinion that the issues already framed need not rather cannot be changed in wake of subsequent development or in the event of a particular document being declared to be inadmissible. If the agreement dated 28.08.1955 has been held to be inadmissible in evidence, the Trial Court will decide the case in accordance with law, including the effect of the document dated 28.08.1955, being held inadmissible. 19. Needless to clarify that while deciding the case, learned Trial Court will not consider the agreement dated 28.08.1955 and would decide the issues No. 1 and 10 independent of the agreement at 28.08.2005. 20. With the above modification, the writ petition is disposed of, with substitution of issue No. 4, as aforesaid.