JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 9.10.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, District Faizabad, in Civil Revision No. 6 of 2018 and also the order dated 29.9.2015 passed by the Additional Civil Judge First (Junior Division), District Faizabad in Regular Suit No. 323 of 1992, wherein the application of the plaintiffs for framing additional issues registered as Paper No. 148-ga was rejected. 3. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, who were the plaintiffs, were recorded owner of the property in dispute i.e., plot No. 105 and filed a suit for permanent injunction on 16.7.1992 for restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession. 4. The plot No. 105 ad-measuring 0.2090 hectare situated at Village Jiyanpur, Pargana-Havali Avadh, Tehsil and District-Faizabad, was shown in the plaint by letters A, B and C. The defendants filed their written statements, to which the petitioners filed their replication. The original defendant having died, the legal hears filed their written statement on 7.5.2015 and took a fresh plea that the disputed land in question is a part of plot No. 103 and not of plot No. 105. The defendants are the recorded tenure holder of plot No. 103 and had purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 29.1.1991. After receiving a copy of the additional written statement, the plaintiffs filed their reply on 3.8.2015 denying the plea of defendants. They were advised to file an application for framing of additional issues and therefore they filed the application under Order XIV, Rule 6 of the C.P.C. on 23.11.2015, as the issues framed by the learned Trial Court on 24.8.2007 did not have any issue relating to the identity of the land in question. Such application was opposed by the defendants by filing their objections registered as Paper No. 149-ga. The learned Trial Court rejected the application of the petitioners on 29.9.2015. The petitioner challenged the order in Civil Revision, which has also been rejected by respondent No. 1 on 9.10.2019. 5. Such application was opposed by the defendants by filing their objections registered as Paper No. 149-ga. The learned Trial Court rejected the application of the petitioners on 29.9.2015. The petitioner challenged the order in Civil Revision, which has also been rejected by respondent No. 1 on 9.10.2019. 5. It has been submitted on the basis of Order XIV, Rule 5 of the C.P.C. that the Court may, at any time, before passing of a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties. Since the Trial Court has not framed any issue with respect to the identity of the disputed land, the plaintiffs will be stopped from adducing the evidence to prove that the disputed land was a part of plot No. 105 and not of plot No. 103. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Yatendra Nath Gupta v. Jagdish Chander Sharma and others, AIR 2003 Del 267 to say that law for amending issues or framing additional issues is settled. During the course of trial in the suit, the Court is bound to take cognizance of the question going to the root of the subject in question between the parties, in case no such issue was framed earlier, the defendants were entitled to move an application for framing additional issues. 7. Reliance has been also placed upon the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ghasiram and others v. Amar Singh and others, 2019 (2) CAR 917 (All) to say that even this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere in orders passed by the Trial Court and Revisional Court, if the Court finds that proper issues were not framed earlier. This Court has considered the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in Yatendra Nath Gupta (supra). The Delhi High Court enjoys original jurisdiction of trying civil suits. The Judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is in fact an order passed on an application under Order XIV, Rule 3 and 5 of the C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C., wherein the defendants were seeking amendment in issues already framed and praying for framing of additional issues. The Judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is in fact an order passed on an application under Order XIV, Rule 3 and 5 of the C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C., wherein the defendants were seeking amendment in issues already framed and praying for framing of additional issues. The Delhi High Court was acting as a Trial Court when it allowed the application under Order XIV as it was of the view that since defendants in their written statement had claimed that they were licensee of the property in question, therefore, the issue prayed to additionally framed goes to the root of the matter as it denied the case set up by the plaintiffs. The judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Ghasiram (supra) relates to the matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but is inapplicable in the case of the petitioners as the writ petitioners therein had not filed any application before the Trial Court praying for framing of additional issues. The order was passed by the Trial Court on application No. 75-C where the defendants had prayed that the suit was barred under section 5 and section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the plaint be returned under Order VII, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. 8. This Court has considered the order passed by the learned Trial Court and thereafter the Revisional Court challenged in this petition. The learned Trial Court has rejected the application for framing of additional issues filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the case originally set up by them in their plaint related to only part of plot No. 105 marked as A, B and C in the plaint. After written statement, a replication was filed. Only on the basis of the additional written statement and an additional replication, no additional issues could be framed. To frame issues, there should be pleadings in the plaint itself and in this case, there were no pleadings in the plaint. An additional replication cannot be treated as a part of their pleadings. 9. The Revisional Court considered the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court as also the fact that since 1992 the suit was pending and the plaintiffs were avoiding cross-examination of the defendants on one ground or the other. An additional replication cannot be treated as a part of their pleadings. 9. The Revisional Court considered the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court as also the fact that since 1992 the suit was pending and the plaintiffs were avoiding cross-examination of the defendants on one ground or the other. Framing of additional issues at this late stage when evidence was so near completion would only delay the decision of the suit. The Revisional Court also observed that the petitioners after the decision in the suit, if it goes against them, can take this ground of rejection of their application under Order XIV, Rule 5, C.P.C. in First Appeal also. 10. This Court exercises very limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court can set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court and the Revisional Court only if the order is found to be patently perverse and apparently illegal. This Court does not sit in Appeal. If a reason has been given in the orders under challenge which may be plausible, and not patently incorrect, this Court sitting in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot set aside the orders under challenge. 11. This petition therefore cannot be entertained and is accordingly dismissed.