ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has laid a challenge to an order dated 23.02.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Merta City, Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'), whereby the learned Trial Court has partly allowed the petitioner's application under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts appertain to the present writ petition are that the original plaintiff - Vinod Kumar had filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profits and possession of the suit premises. In response to the suit so filed, the defendants filed a written statement and disputed all the allegations and averments made in the plaint. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner No.2 - Om Prakash moved an application for being impleaded, as a plaintiff, which application came to be allowed and he was arrayed, as plaintiff No.2. Thereafter, he moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the plaint, which came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court, vide its order dated 12.09.2013. As a result of the said order dated 12.09.2013, two facts and pleadings in relation to subletting of the property and mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- per month were permitted to be incorporated in the plaint. 4. In wake of the aforesaid permission to amend the plaint, the petitioner No.2 - Om Prakash moved another application under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting the Court to frame the following additional issues:- 1 & vk;k fooknxzLr edku izfroknhx.k us fcuk oknh dh lgefr ds iwuepUn f'kopUn iq= x.kiryky vxzoky dks lcysV dj nh rFkk izfroknh buls 4]000@& :i;s izfrekg vukf/kd`r :i ls izkIr dj jgk gS blls oknh bl vk/kkj ij eqruktk nqdku [kkyh djkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 2 & vk;k oknh vkseizdk'k eqruktk nqdku dk cdk;k fdjk;k fnykus dCtk ekud fdjk;k 4]000@& :i;s izfrekg rkjh[k 04-12-2012 ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 5. Aforesaid application filed by the Petitioner No.2 came to be partly allowed by the Court below, vide its order dated 23.02.2017 and an issue in relation to recovery of mesne profits of Rs. 4000/- was framed, however, his prayer for framing of issue about the subletting of the property has been turned down. Mr. Aforesaid application filed by the Petitioner No.2 came to be partly allowed by the Court below, vide its order dated 23.02.2017 and an issue in relation to recovery of mesne profits of Rs. 4000/- was framed, however, his prayer for framing of issue about the subletting of the property has been turned down. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, oppugning the order dated 23.02.2017, contended that since the Trial Court has allowed petitioner's application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has permitted two additional facts to be incorporated in the plaint, it was imperative for the Trial Court to frame both the issues as suggested/prayed by the petitioner. He submitted that the Trial Court is required to frame issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and in view of the amended pleadings, the issue regarding subletting of the property was required to be framed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that if issue in relation to subletting is not framed, the issue about mesne profits framed by the Trial Court would be rendered redundant. 6. It is relevant to observe that vide its order dated 12.09.2017, this Court had permitted the notice of the respondent to be served upon the counsel appearing in the Trial Court, pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner, in which it was pointed out that the defendants-tenants are avoiding service of the notice. After service of the notice, as ordered above, this Court on 16.11.2017 has observed as under:- "A copy of this order be sent to learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Merta City. Counsel for the petitioner - plaintiff shall also place a certified copy of this order on the next date of hearing in the Trial Court, which is reported to be 04.12.2017, which shall be kept for perusal of the learned counsel for the defendants to make him aware, that the service has been treated complete in the present writ proceedings, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3610/2017) and the matter shall be heard by this Court on 14.12.2017. On failure of the respondents to appear before this Court, on the next date of hearing, appropriate orders, including judgment of the writ petition would be passed. List this case on 14.12.2017." 7. On failure of the respondents to appear before this Court, on the next date of hearing, appropriate orders, including judgment of the writ petition would be passed. List this case on 14.12.2017." 7. On 14.12.2017, due to paucity of time, the matter could not be taken up for consideration, however, it has come up for consideration today, i.e., 18.12.2017. 8. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, informed this Court that on 04.12.2017, the Trial Court has made the counsel for the respondents aware about the order dated 16.11.2017 passed by this Court, for which, both the respondent and his counsel, despite having knowledge of the fact that the Court would be proceeding with the hearing of the case, on the next date, have chosen not to appear. 9. As such, the Writ Petition is being decided finally, looking to the limited/trivial compass of the controversy involved in the case. 10. Having considered the submissions of Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the Court below had allowed the application of the petitioner No.2 - Om Prakash, seeking amendment in the plaint, vide its order dated 12.09.2013, which reads thus:- cdqyk; i{kdkjku mifLFkrA cgl izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 lhihlh lquh xbZA izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr Subsequent Events ds vk/kkj ij okn i= esa ;g la'kks/ku pkgk x;kA izkFkhZ vkseizdk'k dks oknh ds :i esa fnuakd 09-04-2013 dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gSA vr% izkFkZuk i= vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 lhihlh mlds lEcU/k esa IysaV dks vesaM+ djus ckcr Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs is'k gksus la'kksf/kr okn i= fnuakd 23-09-2013 dks is'k gksA 11. As a result of the order dated 12.09.2013, the petitioner No.2 Om Prakash was permitted to amend his plaint, whereby additional pleadings in relation to subletting of the shop and mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- were introduced in the plaint. 12. In view of the such changed circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have framed issues at least qua the amendments brought in the plaint. 13. In considered opinion of this Court, petitioner's application filed on 09.04.2014 under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure deserves to be allowed in toto. 12. In view of the such changed circumstances, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have framed issues at least qua the amendments brought in the plaint. 13. In considered opinion of this Court, petitioner's application filed on 09.04.2014 under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure deserves to be allowed in toto. The Trial Court has committed an error of law in refusing to frame issue in relation to subletting of the shop. This Court feels that until and unless, the issue about subletting of the shop is framed and necessary evidence in relation thereto is led, the additional issue framed about the mesne profits to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- becomes otiose. 14. The writ petition filed by the petitioners is thus allowed. Trial Court is directed to frame the following issue:- vk;k fooknxzLr edku izfroknhx.k us fcuk oknh dh lgefr ds iwuepUn f'kpUn iq= x.kiryky vxzoky dks lcysV dj nh rFkk izfroknh buls 4]000@& :i;s izfrekg vukf/kd`r :i ls izkIr dj jgk gS blls oknh bl vk/kkj ij eqruktk nqdku [kkyh djkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 15. Writ Petition allowed, as indicated above.