JUDGMENT : A.K. MENON, J. 1. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the framing of two additional issues by the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco in Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A. The impugned Order dated 07.04.2021 was passed on an application at Exhibit 131. 2. It will be appropriate to deal with few facts before considering the controversy. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff and the Respondent is the original Defendant. The Petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A, for seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from interfering with possession of the suit premises and for mandatory injunction permitting the Defendant to restore the supply of electricity disconnected in the leased suit premises. Alternatively, the suit sought a direction to the Electricity Department, Cortalim, to issue fresh electricity connection in respect to the suit premises. A Decree is also sought in a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- towards the loss suffered for twenty months at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month till electricity was reconnected. The suit came to be filed in and around April 2012. 3. It is the Plaintiff's case that he has been working at Vasco Da Gama since 1974, as a carpenter and employed by one Devraj. Later he was a customer of M/s. D.R. Kamat & Brothers at Cortalim and was acquainted with one Damu Kamat. It is the case of the Plaintiff that Damu Kamat had started making furniture in the name of Kamat Furniture at Cortalim and opposite to his timber depot office at Cortalim. It is contended that Damu Kamat had become friendly with the Plaintiff and had allowed the Plaintiff to use the suit premises admeasuring 87 square metres under an oral agreement since July 1974. The premises is said to also have appurtenant open land on two sides admeasuring 170 square metres thereby totaling to 257 square metres. Rent of Rs. 30/- per month was allegedly agreed upon for occupying the premises; that the same came to be increased to about Rs. 100/- in the year 1984. It is the Plaintiff's case that he has been carrying on business of making furniture at the said premises and would also buy the requisite quantity of timber from Damu Kamat. Rent of Rs. 30/- per month was allegedly agreed upon for occupying the premises; that the same came to be increased to about Rs. 100/- in the year 1984. It is the Plaintiff's case that he has been carrying on business of making furniture at the said premises and would also buy the requisite quantity of timber from Damu Kamat. The Plaintiff has claimed that he was carrying on business under the name of “George Industry” and he held registration with the Directorate of Industries as a SSI Unit. He was assessed to Central Sales Tax and also holds No Objection Certificate issued by the Directorate of Health Services. He has relied upon all those documents of registrations and certificates in the plaint. It is the Plaintiff's contention that having established a good business, he had acquired certain machinery which he installed at the site. The Defendant took no objection to the same and the continued use of the machines since the carpentry business was established and he had complied with statutory requirements including Trade Tax which was payable to the Village Panchayat at Cortalim. It is his case that, in the month of May 2010, when the Defendant went to pay the rent, the Defendant demanded a rent of Rs. 5,000/- per month since he realized that the Plaintiff was earning lakhs of rupees from the furniture business. Thereupon, disputes arose. According to the Plaintiff, till May 2010, he had paid all the rent that was due and thereafter continued to pay rent by money order which was returned. In June 2010, the Defendant and his son apparently trespassed into the suit premises and removed the fuse from the fuse box thereby disconnecting the electricity. A complaint was then filed with the Police and the Electricity Department which permitted replacement of the fuse, which the Plaintiff did. Once again, the fuse came to be removed by the Defendant forcibly resulting in the complaint being reiterated with the Verna Police Station. The Plaintiff claims that he was thereafter threatened by unknown persons. Later persons claiming to be from the Electricity Department, visited the premises and disconnected the electricity and took away the meter. Thus, the Plaintiff was without an electricity connection which, according to him, is caused to be disconnected illegally by the Defendant causing enormous inconvenience and loss of business. The Plaintiff claims that he was thereafter threatened by unknown persons. Later persons claiming to be from the Electricity Department, visited the premises and disconnected the electricity and took away the meter. Thus, the Plaintiff was without an electricity connection which, according to him, is caused to be disconnected illegally by the Defendant causing enormous inconvenience and loss of business. Fearing eviction illegally, the Plaintiff filed the suit claiming the aforesaid relief. 4. A written statement has been filed in which the Defendant has raised a preliminary objection that no Landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties; that no tenancy was created by the Defendant or by his late father; that the suit is bad in law for want of cause of action and for want of jurisdiction since claims of tenancy would have been made under Section 56 of the Goa Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Goa Act of 1968’). It transpires that the Plaintiff had also filed an application for depositing the rent before the Rent Controller in August 2010 and withdrew the same in April 2012 since, according to him, the Plaintiff realized that he was unlikely to succeed. The Written statement goes on to state that Damu Kamat died on or about 21.03.2003 and pursuant to Inventory Proceedings, the suit property was allotted to the Defendant. A sense of trust had developed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant since the Plaintiff would visit Vasco city often. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff was doing petty jobs for the Plaintiff and after the demise of the Damu Kamat, the Plaintiff used to run to do errands for the Defendant including payment of electricity bills, etc. It is the case of the Defendant that on 30.05.2010, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant at his residence and pleaded that he was in difficulty since he had been asked to vacate the shop premises whereat, he was carrying on carpentry work in the name and style of “George Industry.” It is the Defendant's case that the Plaintiff represented to him that he was in the process of locating another shop on rental basis at Zuarinagar, Mormugao and that till such time, he may be permitted to keep his machinery. The Defendant apparently on humanitarian grounds permitted storage in the shed of the suit property but only for a period of two weeks. According to the Defendant, the Plaintiff brought his machinery in the shed on 01.06.2010. It appears that the Defendant has thereafter contended that neighbouring residents in the vicinity of the shed were disturbed because the machinery was operating at night. The Plaintiff was asked to stop operations of this machine, but he would intermittently use at night disturbing the neighbouring residents, which resulted in the removal of the fuse as aforesaid. Eventually this suit came to be filed. 5. The preliminary defence is that the Plaintiff was not a tenant; that no Landlord-tenant relationship existed nor tenancy was created either by the Defendant or his Predecessors in title. Further it is contended that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the Plaintiff. 6. On these pleadings, the matter went to trial. Issues were framed on 19.07.2013, which are re-produced below: ISSUES 1. Whether it is proved that the plaintiff is having a carpentry shop known as George Industry in the suit premises since in the year 1974? 2. Whether it is proved that the defendant has tried to forcibly evict the plaintiff from the suit premises? 3. Whether it is proved that the plaintiff has suffered and is suffering losses of Rs. 20,000/- per month since 23.07.2010 due to the act of the defendant of disconnecting his electricity supply? 4. Whether it is proved that defendant had permitted the plaintiff to keep his machinery in the suit premises temporarily for a period of two weeks from 01.06.2012? 7. The parties filed their affidavit of evidence and the suit proceeded to trial and evidence has been recorded between August 2019 to January 2020. The cross examination of the Defendant is believed to have concluded. 8. On 03.03.2021, exhibit 131 came to be filed under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by the Defendant. In that application, the Defendant requested the Court to frame two additional issues. Those proposed issues are re-produced below: “Additional Issues (1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that in July 1974 late Mr. Damu Kamat by oral agreement leased the premises admeasuring 87 sq. In that application, the Defendant requested the Court to frame two additional issues. Those proposed issues are re-produced below: “Additional Issues (1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that in July 1974 late Mr. Damu Kamat by oral agreement leased the premises admeasuring 87 sq. mts which was an enclosed area being a structure and further leased as open area situated on the Eastern and Northern i.e. in front and side of the leased premises and the other side i.e. southern side of the leased suit premises in Cortalim-Ponda road and the western side of the leased premises is Nallah. (2) Whether the Plaintiff proves that initially the rent of the leased premises/shop and open area occupied by the Plaintiff was fixed at Rs. 30/- per month and in the month of August 1984 rent was further increased at Rs. 100/- per month and the said rent was paid directly in the hands of Mr. Damu Kamat and upon the death of Mr. Damu Kamat, directly in the hands of the defendant.” 9. It was the Defendant's case that both parties had led evidence on the proposed issues and those issues were required for arriving at a right decision in the case. The application was contested but was allowed by the Judge on 07.04.2021 observing that the Trial Court had powers to frame and strike out issues at any stage of the case if required to be done for effective justice to the parties. Case law was discussed and the Court held that since the Defendant had disputed the Landlord-Tenant relationship, it was incumbent upon the Plaintiff to prove that he was a tenant and that he holds possession as a tenant and therefore it was necessary to frame issues relating to tenancy. 10. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the said Order and Mr. Vernekar has canvassed the Petitioner's case on the basis that this is nothing but an afterthought. After nine long years after framing issues, the Defendant has now sought to delay proceedings and alter the course of proceedings by filing the application belatedly in March 2021. Mr. 10. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the said Order and Mr. Vernekar has canvassed the Petitioner's case on the basis that this is nothing but an afterthought. After nine long years after framing issues, the Defendant has now sought to delay proceedings and alter the course of proceedings by filing the application belatedly in March 2021. Mr. Vernekar submitted that the application is not maintainable at this stage of the suit and requires to be rejected since it is dishonest and seeks to deviate from the real controversy; no case has been made out on pleadings to frame either of the two additional issues; that this application has been made after final arguments of the Plaintiff have been concluded and that the matter was now scheduled for Defendant's submissions; that the Defendants are now seeking to improve upon their case but the application has no merit. The additional issues were not at all required to be framed since the matter between the parties is not one that pertains to claim of tenancy but for an injunction restraining the Defendant from dispossessing the Plaintiff without due process of law or illegally evicting the Plaintiff and for mandatory injunction and restoration of electricity supply. Mr. Vernekar contended that issues were framed on 19.07.2013 and there has been no challenge to those issues, nor any attempts were made for recasting the issues. In support of his submissions, he has produced documents, plans, electricity bills, photographs, Bills for purchase of timber from M/s. D.R. Kamat and Brothers, certificates of registration, etc. since these are aspects which go to the laying of the case of the suit which is pending trial before the Court. I do not find it necessary to delve into these aspects in greater details except to state that these are documents which the Trial Court will obviously consider. 11. Mr. Vernekar contended that, as held in the case of Archana Ashok Amburle vs. Smt. Arpana Shankar Dudham and Others, 2019 (2) Mh. L.J. 67 the High Court has already held that an application for framing an additional issue which is filed belatedly and evidence had been led by both the parties, there was no interference warranted. He therefore submits that the decision in Archana Ashok Amburle (supra), would apply with full force in the present case. 12. My attention is also invited by Mr. He therefore submits that the decision in Archana Ashok Amburle (supra), would apply with full force in the present case. 12. My attention is also invited by Mr. Vernekar to the decision of the High Court in the case of Baliram Maruti Satvekar vs. Dadu Govind Tipugade and Others, 1985 Mh. L.J. 311 in which the Court considered a reference under Section 85-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and in which the Trial Court had framed an additional issue no. 2 on the footing that the Petitioner was already in possession of the premises. Only if he was in possession, the nature of his possession as a tenant would be relevant and that the Plaintiff was not able to prove his possession in respect of the area claimed to have been purchased by Defendant no. 2 therein. A suit for injunction simpliciter against the second Defendant would not be maintainable and, therefore, the question whether the Plaintiff was a tenant or not would not be material for the purpose of the suit. Mr. Vernekar, therefore, submitted that the Petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned Order is liable to be set aside. 13. As for the Defendant, Mr. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate, has opposed the Petition on the basis of the legal position. According to Mr. Ramani, the issue of tenancy was necessary to be framed when the Court had found it convenient to frame the issue for the effective disposal of the suit. Mr. Ramani submitted that the proceedings before the Rent Controller filed by the Plaintiff was of no consequence or relevant since the Rent Controller did not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy which is decided by a Civil Court. He submitted that Mr. Vernekar's reliance upon the Rent Control proceedings is of no relevance since the appropriate Court is the Civil Court wherein the present Civil Suit was pending and hence it only stands to reason that the additional issue was required to be framed to determine whether or not the Plaintiff proves that the premises was leased to him by late Damu Kamat under the alleged oral agreement. Mr. Mr. Ramani supported the impugned Order by reiterating the fact that the Court had considered the fact situation and being empowered to strike out issues at any stage if required, for effective justice, the Court had found it necessary to frame the additional issues and that the Counsel were bound to assist the Court in framing the issues since the Court had a duty to frame sufficiently expressive issues. In this behalf, reliance was placed by the Court on the case of Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia, AIR 2001 SC 490 . The Court also followed the ratio laid in K. Periyasamy and Another vs. Selvakumar and Others, C.R.P. (PD) No. 1751/2014 and M.P. No. 1/2014 decided by Madras High Court by Judgment dated 25.07.2014. 14. Mr. Ramani, placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 88 of 2004, in the case of Vincente Palha and Others vs. Jeffrey Fernandes, in which this Court held that the jurisdiction to decide whether a person is a tenant or not under the Goa Act of 1968, is the Civil Court. Mr. Ramani, therefore, supported the order including on the basis that no reference need be made to the Rent Control proceedings and if the Plaintiff is to establish tenancy, it could not do so before the Rent Controller but only in a Civil Court. Mr. Ramani, also invited my attention to the fact that the Plaintiff had himself withdrawn proceedings before the Rent Controller. 15. Mr. Ramani, in the course of his submissions also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Magiti Sasamal vs. Pandab Bissoi, AIR 1962 SC 547 in support of his contention that material provisions of an enactment should be liberally construed. He also relied upon the fact that if a statute purports to exclude the ordinary jurisdiction of Civil Courts it must do so either by express terms or by the use of such terms as would necessarily lead to the inference of such exclusion, which judgment also referred to the observations of the Privy Council in Secretary of State vs. Mask. and Co. inasmuch, as the settled law that exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. In the instant case, Mr. and Co. inasmuch, as the settled law that exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must either be explicitly expressed or clearly implied. In the instant case, Mr. Ramani submits that the Goa Act of 1968 requires a decision on tenancy to be taken by the Civil Court and not by the Rent Controller. 16. Refuting the contention of Mr. Vernekar, Mr. Ramani, submitted that the Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Vasco Da Gama, is indeed the Civil Court which is required to hear and dispose of the suit. Lastly, Mr. Ramani relied on the decision in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Others vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs. (2012) 5 SCC 370 , wherein a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court had occasion to observe that a person claiming a right to continue in possession, must provide a particularized and specific pleadings along with documents to support his claim and details of subsequent conduct which establishes his possession. My attention was invited to paragraph 69, 70, 74 to 76, 79 and 80, all in support of the contention that the Plaintiff had failed to establish that he was a tenant, that the pleadings do not give sufficient details and, therefore, where the person claims right to continued possession of another property, becomes necessary for him to plead about the owner of the property, date when the possession was entered into, capacity in which he did and manner of conduct of relationship in matter over the years. Furthermore, he stressed upon the fact that due process of law means nobody ought to be condemned unheard. Mr. Ramani, invited my attention to the principles of law which emerge in the case and which have crystallized in Maria Margarida Sequeira (supra), suggesting that the Plaintiff has not established any semblance of right to continue in the premises. 17. It is in this background that I have considered the impugned Order and the facts in the plaint and having heard the learned Counsel at some length, I find that the plaint proceeds on the basis of an oral agreement of lease of 87 square metres closed area and open space of 170 square metres. The Plaintiff has averred that in 1984, Damu Kamat agreed to grant lease of the premises on a rent of Rs. The Plaintiff has averred that in 1984, Damu Kamat agreed to grant lease of the premises on a rent of Rs. 30/- per month which he allegedly increased to Rs. 100/-. The amount of rent is said to have been paid directly to Damu Kamat, who accepted the same till his demise. Admittedly, no rent receipts were issued. The plaint contains averments that timber was brought by the Plaintiff from Damu Kamat and that sales tax concessions were availed of by the Plaintiff. That the Plaintiff had continued operations from the premises and he held a registration with the Directorate of Industries as Small Scale Industry Unit. The Plaintiff also held registration with the Health Department to which I have made reference above. The reason for filing the suit is said to be the threats held out by the Defendant to evict the Plaintiff from the premises in the manner set out in the plaint. This aspect has been denied in the written statement and the Defendant has contended that no Landlord-tenant relationship exists. Interestingly though, on behalf of the Defendant learned Counsel had submitted that this Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy, the Court had therefore framed the issue, but in paragraph 4 of the written statement, the Defendant has contended that Trial Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit under Section 56 of the Goa Act of 1968. Be that as it may, I find that the plaint contains several specific averments in paragraph 14 to 20 in relation to the steps taken by the Plaintiff after having been put in possession by late Damu Kamat. The averments in these paragraphs are sought to be denied by the Defendant in one sentence in paragraph 62, the contents of which are reproduced below: “62. With reference to Para 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the plaint, the contents thereof are denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof.” 18. All averments of the Plaintiff carrying on business have been denied. With reference to Para 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the plaint, the contents thereof are denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof thereof.” 18. All averments of the Plaintiff carrying on business have been denied. Having considered the averments, I find that the plaint has sufficiently particularized the manner in which the Plaintiff has entered possession and furthermore the Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient specifications as to who the owner was and on what date he entered possession, the capacity as to he entered into possession and the manner in which he conducted his relationship with the owner (Damu Kamat) over the years till this suit was filed. Thus, it appears that the pleadings gave sufficient details for raising an issue as contemplated in paragraphs 74 and 75 in the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira (supra). In this behalf, it will be necessary, in my view, to examine the basic principles on the basis of which the issues are framed in the suit and the defence and the provisions of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. It would be appropriate to reproduce order XIV, Rule 1 and 3 of the CPC: “Rule 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 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. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a 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 issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence. ............ Rule 3. (6) Nothing is this rule requires the Court to frame and record issues where the defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence. ............ Rule 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.” 19. A fair reading of the above provisions indicates that issue arises when material propositions of fact or law are affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Material propositions are those which the Plaintiff must allege in order to show right to sue or the Defendant might allege in order to constitute his defence concerned with the issues of fact and probably an issue of law on the aspect of tenancy. Rule 1(5) requires the Court, after reading plaint and written statement and after hearing the parties, to ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and then proceed to frame and record the issues. Under Rule 3, the materials which the Court may use to frame issues are allegations made on oath by the parties including allegations made in the pleadings, answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit and the contents of documents produced by either party. 20. In the instant case, I do not find that the Plaintiff has introduced any document to support creation of tenancy nor does he seek to protect his tenancy or reiterate his right to continue as a tenant. In the suit he seeks to protect his premises. Para-44 of the plaint states that the Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the leased suit premises continuously for the last 37 years without being obstructed from enjoying the premises. Response to Para-4 in the written statement is to be found at Page-80, wherein the Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is in peaceful possession or enjoyment, while reiterating that there is no Landlord-tenant relationship existing between the parties. That the Plaintiff was neither a tenant of the late Damu Kamat or the Defendant. Response to Para-4 in the written statement is to be found at Page-80, wherein the Defendant denies that the Plaintiff is in peaceful possession or enjoyment, while reiterating that there is no Landlord-tenant relationship existing between the parties. That the Plaintiff was neither a tenant of the late Damu Kamat or the Defendant. It appears that the creation of the alleged lease is between the Plaintiff and late Damu Kamat and not the Defendant The issue of tenancy does not appear to be part of the material proposition that the Court should be concerned with. 21. There is no doubt that Rule 5 to Order XIV, empowers the Court before passing of Decree, additional issues are framed but these are only those that may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy as seen would depend on the material propositions of law or fact that may arise. The Plaintiff has not reiterated his tenancy but rather seeks to protect his possession. There are averments that the Plaintiff's possession was threatened by the Defendant or by persons acting at the behest of the Defendant. These averments have been made in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the plaint. Although Rule 5 permits the Court to amend or strike out the issues or framing additional issues before passing of a Decree, the Court also may strike out any issue that appears to be wrongly framed or introduced. It would be pertinent to point out that this is not a case where the Court has examined witnesses or documents before framing issues as contemplated in Rule 4 of Order XIV. In the present case, that occasion did not arise. The additional issues have been framed about eight years after the issues were first framed in 2013 on an application by the Defendant. The impugned Order does not disclose the process of reasoning which required the Court to frame additional issue of tenancy. It appears from the impugned Order that the application at Exhibit 131 has been allowed on the basis of the power vested in the trial court to frame additional issues and the Court observes as follows: “The facts of case in citation are totally different from facts of case at hand. Here dispute is regarding same suit premises. It appears from the impugned Order that the application at Exhibit 131 has been allowed on the basis of the power vested in the trial court to frame additional issues and the Court observes as follows: “The facts of case in citation are totally different from facts of case at hand. Here dispute is regarding same suit premises. Since defendant herein is disputing landlord-tenant relationship, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to prove that he is tenant of the premises and holds possession as a Tenant. Therefore, it is necessary to frame issue regarding Tenancy.” 22. The Court has proceeded to frame the issue “since Defendant herein is disputing Landlord-tenant relationship.” The Court has found it incumbent upon the Plaintiffs to prove that he is a tenant and that he holds possession as a tenant. The suit on the contrary is concerned with protection of possession of the Plaintiff. The fact that the Plaintiff is in possession is undisputed. In Baliram Maruti Satvekar (supra), the Court found that the Civil Court had made a reference almost mechanically the moment the plea of tenancy was raised by the Plaintiff therein. That the Court ought to have realized that a reference on the issue of tenancy is not to be made the moment the plea is raised by a person. The reference was held to be misconceived and invalid and the Petition came to be allowed. The observations of this Court in Baliram Maruti Satvekar (supra), in paragraph 6 that the Civil Court has made a reference almost mechanically the moment the plea of tenancy was raised is relevant. The court found that the reference on the issue of tenancy should not have been made the moment the plea had been made and that issue was only necessary when it was required to be decided for the purpose of decision in the suit. A Suit seeking protection against dispossession and injunction simpliciter would not have required those issues to be raised and to that extent, the order impugned is vulnerable. However, it is always necessary to consider whether the issues arose from material propositions that were affirmed by one party and denied by the other one. A Suit seeking protection against dispossession and injunction simpliciter would not have required those issues to be raised and to that extent, the order impugned is vulnerable. However, it is always necessary to consider whether the issues arose from material propositions that were affirmed by one party and denied by the other one. The assertion in the plaint is focused on possession rather than the Plaintiff's character as tenant of the premises and the Court was required to ascertain material propositions of fact and law on which the parties are at variance. That process has to be seen from the Order passed in the proceedings and the aspect that one has to consider. 23. I have considered the judgments relied upon by Mr. Ramani and I find that those are clearly distinguishable on facts. In the case of Magiti Sasamal vs. Pandab Bissoi (supra), the facts reveal that the Appellant had set up a case that the suit lands belonged to him and had cultivated the lands and raised paddy crops after spending large sums of money and that the respondent had no right or title to the said lands and had never cultivated the land and on notice given to the respondents it appeared that the respondents entered into the lands forcibly and removed the standing crop. This they admitted to do by claiming tenancy of the lands and therefore protection under the Orissa Tenancy Protection Act, 1948. The respondents had admitted title of the appellants to the suit but claimed tenancy. It is in these circumstances, that the Court had occasion to consider to framing of the appropriate issues. In the present case, the Plaintiff is only seeking protection against illegal dispossession without following due process of law. 24. While Mr. Ramani relied on the observations in the Supreme Court case in paragraphs 8 and 9 of Magiti Sasamal vs. Pandab Bissoi (supra), I find that those will not be of any assistance to the Respondent. There can be no doubt that the dispute between the Landlord-tenant would fall within the competence of the Civil Court as contended by the Respondent, but, the present case does not seek any declaration of tenancy but only seeks protection of possession. Besides, issues were framed as far back as 2013 and evidence was led by both parties. There can be no doubt that the dispute between the Landlord-tenant would fall within the competence of the Civil Court as contended by the Respondent, but, the present case does not seek any declaration of tenancy but only seeks protection of possession. Besides, issues were framed as far back as 2013 and evidence was led by both parties. The matter is now at the stage of arguments and the fact situation in the case of Archana Ashok Amburle (supra), also reveals that, in that case, issues were framed six years prior to the application for recasting issues and the entire evidence had been led by both parties, very similar to the facts at hand. The contention in the present case that both parties had led evidence on the aspect of tenancy as well, will not come to the assistance of the Respondent inasmuch as the contention that both parties had led evidence on the aspect of the tenancy and the additional issues as set out in paragraph 9 of the application for framing of additional issues will not justify the framing of those issues, The issue of tenancy is not at the forefront of the Plaintiff's case. In fact, the plaint does not seek relief on the basis of a tenancy but on the basis of threats of being dispossessed illegally. 25. Thus, I do not find that the issue of tenancy is a material proposition of fact or law that has been canvassed has been incorporated as a cause of action leading to the filing of the suit and the materials that the Court was required to use to frame issues in the facts at hand, would not include tenancy as one of the issues. Merely because the Respondent denied the Landlord-tenant relationship would not give rise to that issue in the facts of the present case. The Plaintiff as dominus litus sought protection against illegal dispossession and the additional issues do not arise from the pleadings as a material proposition alleged or affirmed by the Plaintiff and denied by the other so as to justify the framing of the additional issue. The long delay in even seeking such recasting of issues is clearly by way of an afterthought and being raised at the conclusion of the trial. The long delay in even seeking such recasting of issues is clearly by way of an afterthought and being raised at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, in principle, although the Code permits a Court to frame additional issues, exercise of such powers in the instant case is not justified. The decisions in the cases of Maria Margarida Sequeira (supra) and Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. vs. Md. Zahid and Another, 2021 SCC Online SC 744 will not come to the assistance of the Respondent. In Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court found that the Trial Court had committed a manifest error in appreciating pleadings from the plaint at the instance of the Respondent who was a caretaker/servant, who could never acquire right or title in the property irrespective of long possession. In Maria Margarida Sequeira (supra), the principles of the law crystallized in paragraph 97 declares that no one acquires title to property by remaining in such premises gratuitously even after long possession. So also, caretakers, watchmen or servants can never acquire interest in the property from long possession. Courts will not be justified in protecting the possession of such caretakers, servants or such persons. 26. In the facts at hand, the Plaintiff does not fill the character that the Respondent has alleged and as such, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. In the result, the Petition succeeds and I pass the following Order: ORDER: (i) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). (ii) The impugned Order dated 07.04.2021 passed by Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco in Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A, is quashed and set aside. (iii) The trial to proceed without being influenced by any observation on the merits of the matter. (iv) The Petition is allowed in the above terms. (v) No costs.