JUDGMENT : Manoj K. Tiwari, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against an order dated 09.03.2018 passed by learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar in Original Suit No. 139 of 2013. By the said order, learned court below has rejected the application made by plaintiff/revisionist, under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C., for framing three additional issues. The revisionist filed Original Suit No. 139 of 2013 seeking a declaration that the registered agreement to sell executed by his brother (Late Anand Khandelwal) in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 5, be declared null and void. After exchange of pleadings, learned trial court framed following four issues vide order dated 29.05.2014:- 1. Whether the agreement to sell dated 16.08.2010 is ineffective, null and void document? 2. Whether the court fee deposited by the plaintiff is insufficient? 3. Whether the plaint is barred by Order 7 Rule 11(A) of CPC? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any relief? If yes, to what relief? 3. The plaintiff/revisionist after nearly four years made one application, under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C., on 08.03.2018 praying for framing following three additional issues:- 1. Whether the property in question is a joint property of plaintiff and Late Sri Anand Khandelwal, who is husband of defendant No. 6 and father of defendant No. 7? If yes, then its effect? 2. Whether husband of defendant No. 6 and the father of defendant No. 7 – Late Sri Anand Khandelwal had any right to execute an agreement to sell dated 16.08.2010 in respect of a particular piece of land by mentioning boundaries thereof, without partition of the joint family property? If yes, its effect? 3. Whether husband of defendant No. 6 and father of defendant No. 7 – Late Sri Anand Khandelwal had any right to execute a agreement to sell dated 16.08.2010 in respect of suit property despite the injunction order dated 23.09.2009 granted by the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar, in O.S. No. 258 of 2009 Kuldeep Kumar Vs Anand Khandelwal? If yes, its effect? 4. Learned trial court rejected the application made by the plaintiff/revisionist on the ground that additional issue No. 1, sought to be framed by the plaintiff, is not relevant for the disposal of the suit. If yes, its effect? 4. Learned trial court rejected the application made by the plaintiff/revisionist on the ground that additional issue No. 1, sought to be framed by the plaintiff, is not relevant for the disposal of the suit. Regarding additional issue Nos. 2 and 3, sought to be framed by the plaintiff, it was observed that these issues are covered by issue No. 1 earlier framed on 29.05.2014. It was further observed by learned trial court that if necessity is felt at some later stage, then additional issues may be framed. 5. Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. enables the court to amend the issues or frame additional issues, as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties. Learned court below has expressed the view that the suit can be decided on the issues already framed. 6. This Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned in the writ petition. Issue No. 1 framed by the trial court on 29.05.2014 is comprehensive in nature and is sufficient to effectively decide the dispute between the parties. Therefore, there is no justification for framing a new issue at this stage. 7. For the aforesaid reason, there is no scope of interference in the matter. 8. Accordingly, the revision is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.