ORDER : The petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S. No.127 of 2014, are before this Court assailing the order dated 23.10.2019 passed on I.A. No.16 in O.S. No.127 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC at Bhatkal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the suit was at the stage of final arguments, the petitioners/defendants filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for framing of additional issues. The Trial Court rejected the application erroneously. It is contended that the additional issues sought for are very much necessary for deciding the dispute involved in the suit. It is the case of the petitioners/defendants that the father-in-law of the plaintiff purchased the property in the name of husband of the plaintiff in the year 1994 and the property was mortgaged by the husband of the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant No.6 repaid the mortgage amount. In that circumstances, the additional issues are necessary. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the suit is one for ejectment and possession. The Trial Court has framed proper issues based on the pleadings of the parties. It is also submitted that on an earlier occasion, at the instance of the petitioners/defendants, additional issues were framed. Therefore, when the matter is at the stage of arguments, the question of framing of additional issues as sought for by the petitioners/defendants would not be necessary. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The suit is one for ejectment and possession by the plaintiff. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed issues on 27.03.2015. Thereafter, at the instance of the petitioners/defendants, additional issues were framed in November 2017. Thereafter, the trial has taken place and when the matter is at the stage of final arguments, once again, the petitioners/defendants have come up with I.A. No.16 under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC praying to frame two more additional issues. The said application is not even supported by the affidavit of the parties; it is only supported by the memorandum of facts. It is not stated as to how those issues are necessary and relevant for the proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. The said application is not even supported by the affidavit of the parties; it is only supported by the memorandum of facts. It is not stated as to how those issues are necessary and relevant for the proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. It appears that the application is filed only for the purpose of dragging on the proceedings. The Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the issues framed in the suit would be sufficient to decide the dispute between the parties. The Court is of the opinion that the issue No.1 is comprehensive and covers all the issues. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.