ORDER : Heard Sri Mantri Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record. 2. Challenging the docket order dated 13.06.2022 in I.A.No.112 of 2022 in O.S.No.99 of 2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahbubabad, this Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article - 227 of Constitution of India. 3. The dates play an important role in this case. The respondents herein - plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 have filed a suit vide O.S.No.99 of 2010 for declaration, recovery of possession and for mesne profits. The petitioners - defendants have filed written statement way back in the year 2011 itself. The Court below had framed issues on 02.09.2014. According to the revision petitioners, the Court below has not framed proper issue with regard to res judicata. In spite of specific plea in the written statement, no issue on the point of res judicata was framed. Therefore, the petitioners have filed a petition vide I.A.No.112 of 2022 in O.S.No.99 of 2010 to frame an additional issue with regard to res judicata. Vide impugned order dated 13.06.2022, the Court below dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 4. Mr. Mantri Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the contents of the written statement, would submit that the petitioners herein - defendants have specifically pleaded in their written statement with regard to earlier round of litigation, vide O.S. No.24 of 1986 and further contended that the judgment and decree in O.S. No.24 of 1986 operate as res judicata to the proceedings in the present suit. In spite of specific pleading in the written statement, the Court below has not framed the issue with regard to res judicata. According to him, it is the duty of the Court to frame an appropriate issue on consideration of the pleadings. In the present case, the Court below failed to do so. There is substantial force in the said contention. 5. In view of the above, it is relevant to note that in paragraph No.17 of the written statement, there is a specific pleading with regard to res judicata. “The petitioners herein - defendants have specifically pleaded that in the previous suit, i.e., O.S.No.24 of 1986, an issue i.e., whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit house? If so, whether the defendant obtained the same on rent from the plaintiff”, was framed. “The petitioners herein - defendants have specifically pleaded that in the previous suit, i.e., O.S.No.24 of 1986, an issue i.e., whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit house? If so, whether the defendant obtained the same on rent from the plaintiff”, was framed. The said issue had already been decided by the trial Court as “In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit house and he had no capacity to lease out it to the defendant”. The said finding has been confirmed by both the appellate Court as well as High Court. 6. In view of the above said issue framed and decided between the parties, the said judgment and decree operate res judicata to the present suit. Despite said pleading, the Court below has not framed the issue with regard to res judicata. 7. Considering the lis involved in the present revision and to decide the same, it is trite to note that Order - XIV of CPC deals with settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. The same is relevant to appreciate the case and it is extracted below: “ORDER XIV OF CPC Settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon 1. Framing of issues.- (1) Issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. (2) Material propositions arc those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of distinct issue. (4) Issues are of two kinds: (a) issues of fact, (b) issues of law. (5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements if any, and after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. (6) Nothing is this rule requires the Court to frame and record issued where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence. 2. Court to pronounce judgment on all issues.-(1) Notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), pronounce judgment on all issues. (2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if the issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue. 3. Materials from which issues may be framed.-The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials:- (a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by the pleaders of such parties; (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit; (c) the contents of documents produced by either party. 4. Court may examine witnesses or documents before framing issues.-Where the Court is of opinion that the issues cannot be correctly framed without the examination of some person not before the Court or without the inspection of some document not , produced in the suit, it may adjourn the framing of issues to a day not later than seven days and may subject to any law for the time being in force compel the attendance of any person or the production of any document by the person in whose possession or power it is by summons or other process. 5. Power to amend and strike out, issues.-(1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. 5. Power to amend and strike out, issues.-(1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced. 6. Questions of fact or law may by agreement be stated in form of issues.-(1) Where the parties to a suit are agreed as to the question of fact or of law to be decided between them, they may state the same in the form of an issue, and enter into an agreement in writing that, upon the finding of the Court in the affirmative or the negative or such issue,- (a) a sum of money specified in the agreement or to be ascertained by the Court, or in such manner as the Court may direct, shall be paid by one of the parties to the other of them, or that one of them be declared entitled to some right or subject some liability specified in the agreement; (b) some property specified in the agreement and in dispute in the suit shall be delivered by one of the parties to the other of them, or as that other may direct; or (c) one or more of the parties shall do or abstain from doing some particular act specified in the agreement and relating to the matter in dispute. 7. Court, if satisfied that agreement was executed in good faith, may pronounce judgment.- Where the Court is satisfied, after making such inquiry as it deems proper,- (a) that the agreement was duly executed by the parties, (b) that they have a substantial interest in the decision of such question as aforesaid, and (c) that the same is fit to be tried and decided, it shall proceed to record and try the issue and state its finding or decision thereon in the same manner as if the issue had been framed by the Court; and shall, upon the finding or decision on such issue, pronounce judgment according to the terms of the agreement; and, upon the judgment so pronounced, a decree shall follow.” 8. The term “issue” in a civil case means a disputed question relating to rival contentions in a suit. It is focal point of argument. Framing of issues is an important exercise. Utmost care and attention is required to be bestowed by the Judicial Officers/Judges/Lawyers/Litigant at the time of framing of issues. Some extra time spent at that time would have saved several years in Court proceedings. The correct decision of the civil litigation largely depends upon the correct framing of issues. 9. Considering the significance of framing of appropriate issues, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia, AIR 2001 SC 490 held as under: “An obligation is cast on the Court to read the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or law on which the parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their counsel are bound to assist the Court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the Court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission…..” “…..The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding issues-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided.” 10. It was reiterated by the Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 that framing of issues is very important stage in civil litigation and it is bounden duty of Court that due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the Presiding Judge while framing issues. 11. It was reiterated by the Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 that framing of issues is very important stage in civil litigation and it is bounden duty of Court that due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the Presiding Judge while framing issues. 11. It is also relevant to note that a Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Maddala Sai Lakshmi v. Medisetti Lakshmi Narasamma, 2006 (4) ALD 46 referring to the lapse on the part of the trial Court in not framing issue with regard to adoption which was the core issue in the said case and also noticing the lapse on the part of the counsel appearing on the parties, held that it is fatal and noticeable lapse, it vitiates the very approach, the findings, the ultimate result in the suit. In paragraph No.10, the Division Bench observed as follows: “10. Before parting, we are very often coming across a situation where it is noticed that the issues as framed at the inception are not correctly representing the dispute in between the parties. We are conscious of the fact that immediately after filing any written statement, no serious attention is being paid by either side in the Court below nor due assistance is given at the time of framing issues. No draft issues are being filed at that stage. No attempt is made to point out whether the issues as framed are proper at the stage of commencement of trial. It is only after proceeding with the trial or may be at a later stage, including arguments stage, it is noticed that the issues are not properly framed and it requires reframing. This is a clear instance where the Court below totally lost sight of the core dispute, which arises between the parties, in regard to the adoptions as set up by them in their respective pleadings and yet, we do not find any issue framed thereon. To avoid such lapses or late realization, in every case, before commencement of trial, a specific date has to be posted for hearing both the sides once again on the issues, to see if they have been properly framed or needs any reframing and it is only after such exercise is done, the trial should be allowed to commence and proceeded with. Even at the hearing, both the sides can be called upon to file any draft issues for warranting reframing. This exercise ultimately can safely avoid orders of remand by Appellate Courts, as is being done in this case.” 12. In Thota Rambabu v. Cherukuri Venkateswara Rao, 2005 (4) ALD 450 , a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, pointing out the lapse on the part of the trial Court in not framing an appropriate issue with regard to limitation, though the same was specifically pleaded, in paragraph Nos.25 and 26, held as follows: “25. Framing of issues is one of the important steps in the adjudication of suits. It enables the Court to focus upon the actual controversy, in the light of the pleadings of the parties. There does not exist any necessity for a Court to frame an issue on an aspect, as to which, the parties are not at controversy. The occasion for a Court to frame issues arises at a stage, after the defendant is served with a notice, and in turn, he comes forward with his written statement. Limitation, however, is an aspect, comparable to an issue, which the Court itself is expected to take into account, even at the threshold, namely, presentation of the plaint. Rules 6 and 11 of Order 7 C.P.C., make this aspect very clear. 26. The Court can reject the plaint, if it is not satisfied, that the suit was presented within a period of limitation. The Legislature had provided for such a step, because of the reason that, the question of limitation, for the most part of it, can be decided on the averments, contained in the plaint itself. If it appears to the Court at the first blush, that the suit claim is barred by limitation, it can obviate the necessity of calling upon the defendant to deliver his defence.” 13. It is also relevant to note that in Savitri Bai v. Om Prakash Gupta, 1996 (3) ALT 424 (S.B.), a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad had an occasion to deal with the scope and ambit of framing issues. In the said case, the trial Court has framed two additional issues on filing of written statement by defendant No.2 and recast ten issues framed earlier into four issues. In the said case, the trial Court has framed two additional issues on filing of written statement by defendant No.2 and recast ten issues framed earlier into four issues. Besides the said additional issues framed after filing of the written statement by defendant No.2, the trial Court also framed an additional issue. Considering the said facts and also referring to the principle laid down in D. Dharmappa v. Venkappa, AIR 1926 Bombay 33, held that framing of additional issue by Court while writing judgment in the case which is in a way recasting of additional issues framed, on material pleas of parties and for determining matters in controversy relating to which evidence was adduced on additional issues already framed is not beyond jurisdiction of the trial Court. 14. In Anil Kumar v. Devender Kumar, MANU/DE/1869/2019, the High Court of Delhi while dealing with a suit on original side extensively considered the entire procedure laid down under Order XIV of CPC, scope and ambit with regard to framing of issues and certain paragraphs of the said judgment are relevant, which are reproduced hereunder: “4. However that is as good as not framing any issues inasmuch as from the plaint on record itself it is evident that the entitlement of the plaintiff to the said reliefs is to be adjudicated. Framing such general and omnibus issues defeats the whole purpose of framing of issues. 5. The CPC, after competition of pleadings, vide Order XIV Rule 1 requires issues to be framed in the suit. Rule 1(1) of Order XIV provides that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Rule 1(2) of Order XIV provide that material propositions are those propositions of law or fact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence. Order XIV Rule 1(3) provides that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. Rule 1(4) provides that issues are of two kinds i.e. issues of fact and issues of law. Order XIV Rule 1(3) provides that each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. Rule 1(4) provides that issues are of two kinds i.e. issues of fact and issues of law. Thereafter, Rule 1(5) requires the Court to, at the first hearing of the suit, after reading the plaint and the written statement and after hearing the parties or their pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or law the parties are at variance and proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. 6. Framing of omnibus issues with respect to the reliefs claimed, as suggested, is in violation of Order XIV Rule 1(3) which requires distinct issues to be framed on each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Such omnibus issues also do not cull out the material propositions of fact or law on which the parties are at variance and do not tell the Court the issues on which the right decision of the case depends, as required by Rule 1(5). Framing such omnibus issues has the potential of the trial as well as the decision, going haywire. 7. Order XIV Rule 3 of CPC provides that issues may be framed either on the allegations made on oath by the parties or on the basis of allegations made in the pleadings or on the basis of contents of documents produced by either party. 8. Once issues have been framed, the Court, under Order XV Rule 3 of the CPC, has to consider whether existing undisputed evidence in the form of documents available on the record is sufficient to determine such issues and if not, to give an opportunity to the parties for production of evidence as may be necessary for decision upon such issues. 9. What falls from the aforesaid procedure is that the evidence led by the parties is to be guided by the issues framed and not by the reliefs claimed in the plaint. What further falls from the aforesaid procedure is, that the determination by the Court also has to be of the issues framed and not of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. The grant of the relief claimed in the plaint is consequential to the determination of the issues. 10. What further falls from the aforesaid procedure is, that the determination by the Court also has to be of the issues framed and not of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. The grant of the relief claimed in the plaint is consequential to the determination of the issues. 10. The question, who is to lead evidence first i.e. whether the plaintiff or the defendant and if there are more than one defendants, which of the defendants, also depends upon the issues framed and the onus of proof thereof. Thus, if the onus of all the issues or of the principal issue is on the defendant and not on the plaintiff, it is the defendant who will lead evidence first and not the plaintiff. 11. That the evidence to be led in the suit is to be guided by the issues and not by the pleadings becomes further clear from Order XVIII Rule 3 of the CPC which provides that where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party. 12. Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC provides that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the Court shall pronounce judgment on all issues. It further provides that where issues both of law and fact arise in the same suit and the Court is of the opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first, if that issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Court, or a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force. Order XX Rule 1(2) also requires the Court to in the judgment return findings on each issue. Order XX Rule 5 also provides that in suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue. 13. Order XX Rule 1(2) also requires the Court to in the judgment return findings on each issue. Order XX Rule 5 also provides that in suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefor, upon each separate issue. 13. Thus, not only the trial even the judgment is to be structured on the issues.” i) Learned Judge has also relied on the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Makhan Lal Bangal wherein it was held in paragraph No.14, which is as under: “….(i) the stage of framing the issues is an important one in as much as on that day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall proceed, excluding diversions and departures therefrom; (ii) the date fixed for settlement of issues is therefore a date fixed for hearing; the real dispute between the parties is determined, the area of conflict is narrowed and the concave mirror held by the Court reflecting the pleadings of the parties pinpoint into issues the disputes on which the two sides differ; (iii) the correct decision of civil lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided; (iv) the parties and their counsel are bound to assist the Court in the process of framing of issues; (v) duty of the counsel however does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the Court; (vi) an omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission; (vii) if the parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact, the suit shall be fixed for trial, calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact; (viii) evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings; (ix) no evidence on controversies, not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues, the burden of proving which lies on him; (x) the object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is; (xi) the judgment, then proceeding issue-wise, would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided; (xii) if a material proposition of fact or law is not denied or is not specifically denied in the written statement and such tenor of the written statement persuades the Judge in forming an opinion that there was an admission by necessary implication for want of denial, no issue needs be framed and there is no need for recording of evidence on those issues; and, (xiii) valuable time of the Court would be saved from being wasted in recording evidence on such averments in pleadings as were not in issue for want of traverse.” ii) He has also relied on the judgment of Delhi High Court in I.T.C. Ltd. v. C. L. Anand, (1995) 60 DLT 111 , wherein it was held that issues are framed to shorten the arena of dispute and to ascertain and pinpoint where the two sides differ so that no party to the suit is taken by surprise. It was further held that the Court should not determine an issue which does not arise on the pleadings and it is essential to the right decision of a case that appropriate issues are framed. iii) Learned Judge has also relied upon by the principle laid down by him in Kawal Sachdeva v. Madhu Bala Rana, MANU DE/1050/2013 held in paragraph Nos.16 and 17, which are as under: “16. …. (i) when a vague plea is taken, the Court should hesitate to frame an issue on such a vague plea unless the parties are able to give particulars in support of the plea; (ii) a bald plea unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence is not sufficient for the purpose of framing an issue; (iii) issues are not framed on whatsoever pleas are contained in the pleadings but only on material pleadings of fact and law; (iv) a plea which has no basis in law to stand on and/or a plea qua which law is well settled cannot be said to be a material plea inviting framing of an issue thereon; and, (v) framing of an unnecessary issue invites unnecessary evidence and arguments and which protracts the disposal of suits….” “17. If such omnibus issues, as suggested are framed, post framing of issues when parties are relegated to trial, they do not know what to prove and on what they are required to lead evidence, resulting in the parties often failing to prove or disprove what they were required to prove or disprove in support of their case and/or to defeat the case of the other. Framing such general omnibus issues also results in the Court, required vide Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC to state its finding or decision with reasons upon each separate issue, also at the time of pronouncement of judgment not knowing on what points of controversy finding or decision is required to be returned and generally rendering a decision. Framing such general omnibus issues also results in the Court, required vide Order XX Rule 5 of the CPC to state its finding or decision with reasons upon each separate issue, also at the time of pronouncement of judgment not knowing on what points of controversy finding or decision is required to be returned and generally rendering a decision. This often results in the parties to the lis, post judgment, realizing their follies in proving or disproving what they were required to prove and taking such grounds in appeal, often resulting in remands, for the controversy required to be adjudicated having not been adjudicated either for the default of the parties or the Court and otherwise in injustice being done owing to the crucial stage of framing of issues having been neglected by the litigants and their counsels and as is more often than not, the case. On the contrary, if the parties and the counsels and the Court, at the stage of framing of issues bestow proper attention to the pleadings and the controversy, it often results in, either no evidence being found to be necessary or even if evidence if required to be led, being precise and concise, adducing whereof does not take much time, resulting in quicker trials and arguments with precision and early disposal of the lis.” iv) He has also relied on his own judgment in Vifor (International) Ltd. v. Suven Life Sciences Ltd., MANU/DE/0887/2019, wherein it was held that though in the context of commercial suits but of equal relevance to other suits also, held that vagueness of such omnibus issues with respect to the relief claimed, as the counsel for the plaintiff is suggesting, permits all kinds of evidence being led instead of the issues guiding the trial, with all concerned knowing precisely what is required to be proved and non-proof whereof the consequence shall follow. v) It further held that the counsel as well as the Court, at the stage of framing of issues, are required to peruse the pleadings and in reference to the relief claimed, cull out the essential ingredients which the plaintiff is required to be proved to be entitled to that relief and to see whether the defendant is specifically denying (not vaguely denying) the same and if denying, on what facts or grounds and thereafter consider on whom the onus of proof should be. If the denial by the defendant of any material proposition of fact or law is on the basis of facts which the defendant only can prove, issue qua the said fact would be framed placing the onus thereof on the defendant. vi) Paragraph Nos.22 and 23 of the said judgment are also relevant and the same are extracted below. “22. Framing issues in the manner aforesaid would at all times indicate to the counsels, litigants as well as to the Court, what is for adjudication and will result in only those witnesses being examined who can prove or disprove the said disputed fact and the Court also returning finding only on that and in accordance with the said finding either pass a decree for partition if the defendant has failed to prove the issue or dismissed the suit if the defendant has proved such transfer. 23. I have spoken at length on the subject, finding in my years of practice of the profession of law, whether as a Lawyer or as a Judge, that the stage of framing of issues is the most neglected stage. The neglect results in long term mischief. Conversely, if there is an appropriate application of mind at the stage of proposing and framing of issues by all concerned, the same will go a long way in eliminating the delays for which suits are infamous.” 15. It is also relevant to note that in P. Kashinath Yadav v. Mangilal Choudary, 2022 (1) ALT 45 (S.B.), a learned Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana observed that it is better that the members of the bar shall file draft issues before framing of issues by the Courts and filing of draft issues before framing of issues by the Courts, will assist the trial Court in deciding the lis as expeditiously as possible and will save some time. 16. The sum and substance of the aforesaid decisions is that it is the bounden duty of trial Court to frame issues considering the pleadings of the parties. 17. As discussed supra, there is a specific pleading with regard to res judicata. According to the petitioners herein, the judgment and decree in earlier suit i.e., O.S.No.24 of 1986 operate as res judicata to the present suit. 18. It is apt to note that the Court below has framed the issues on 02.09.2014. 17. As discussed supra, there is a specific pleading with regard to res judicata. According to the petitioners herein, the judgment and decree in earlier suit i.e., O.S.No.24 of 1986 operate as res judicata to the present suit. 18. It is apt to note that the Court below has framed the issues on 02.09.2014. Learned counsel for the petitioners herein - defendants is silent all through. Trial was completed and the matter was posted for arguments. At that belated stage, learned counsel for the petitioners herein - defendants had filed the present application for framing of additional issue with regard to res judicata. According to this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners herein - defendants is also at fault. Non-framing of proper issue was not brought to the notice of the trial Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein - defendants till 2022. The present application was filed when the matter was posted for arguments. 19. However, as discussed supra, as per Order XIV of CPC, the trial Court failed to execute its duty to frame a proper issue before proceeding further. It is a glaring and patent error committed by the trial Court. Therefore, the observation of the trial Court in the impugned order that “though the issues with respect to maintainability of suit hits res judicata or filed within limitation are not framed, but the pleadings and the evidence adduced by both parties can be looked at the time of writing judgment” is contrary to the spirit of Legislative intent. 20. The object of framing the issue is to bring the evidence, arguments and the decision to a particular question, so that there would be no doubt as to what is the dispute. The correct decision of the civil litigation largely depends upon the correct framing of issues. The Court below cannot refuse to carry out its responsibilities under law. 21. It is relevant to note that this Court being High Court is having power of superintendence to correct any error including flagrant error in procedure and where the order passed results in manifest injustice or contains an error both on facts and in law or even otherwise as held by the Apex Court in Trimbak Gangadhar Telang v. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide, (1997) 2 SCC 437 and State of Kerala v. K. Sarojini Amma, (2003) 8 SCC 526 . 22. 22. It is also apt to refer that in the decision making process, if the Court, Tribunal or Authority deciding the case, has ignored vital evidence and thereby arrived at an erroneous conclusion or has misconstrued the provisions of the relevant Act or misunderstood the scope of his jurisdiction, the Constitutional Power of High Court under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to set right such errors and prevent gross injustice to the party complaining as held by the Apex Court in State of A.P. v. P.V. Hanumantha Rao, (2003) 10 SCC 7, High Court has power to correct the said error on an application of a party or suo motu. 23. As discussed supra, the suit is of the year 2010. The petitioners herein - defendants are seeking stay of all further proceedings. From last 12 years, the lis is pending before the Court below. Due to the above, this Court, by invoking its supervisory powers under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India, while dispensing with the notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4, is setting aside the impugned order of the Court below. Further, this Court is forced to order the trial Court to formulate a suitable issue based on pleadings before proceeding further. 24. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 13.06.2022 in I.A.No.112 of 2022 in O.S. No.99 of 2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-, Mahbubabad, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Judge with a direction to consider the pleadings of the parties, decide the said I.A.No.112 of 2022 afresh. 25. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed its opinion on merits. Since the suit is of the year 2010, learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahbubabad, is directed to dispose of the very suit itself in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 26. The present Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.