ORDER 1. By this miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the plaintiffs have challenged the order of the trial court dated 25.4.2018, whereby the petitioners' application under Order 14 rule 5 of the CPC for framing the additional issue has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that subsequently the plaint was amended and the factum of encroachment was incorporated and relief in this regard was claimed, therefore, the additional issue was required to be framed. 3. As against this learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the petitioner by filing the application under Order 14 rule 5 of the CPC had made a prayer for framing the issue in respect of the encroachment. The trial Court had originally framed the issue on 8.11.2016 but none of the four issues framed by that order relate to the issue of encroachment. The trial court by the impugned order has rejected the petitioner's application without considering the pleadings in respect of encroachment and without ascertaining if such an issue arise for determination in the suit in the light of respective pleadings of the parties. The trial Court has mentioned that in the application there is no prayer for framing the additional issue, whereas in Para-3 of the application the petitioners had clearly stated that the issues proposed are necessary and they are required to be framed. In the prayer clause also the prayer was to frame the additional issue. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the trial court has committed patent illegality in rejecting the application under Order 14 rule 5 of the CPC. The impugned order of the trial Court is accordingly set aside with a direction to the trial Court to reconsider the application in accordance with law. 6. The miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of.