JUDGMENT : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short ‘the trial court’), in Civil Suit No.58/2014, Raj Bahadur Rajoriya v. Lalchand Rajoriya & Ors., whereby disposed of both the applications filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 read with section 151 CPC and the another application filed by the defendant No.3 seeking amendment to discharge the defendant No.3 from proving the issues No.2 and 3. The plaintiff/ petitioner has also challenged the order dated 26.09.2016 passed by the trial court by which the review application filed by the plaintiff/defendant in regard to reviewing the order dated 03.05.2016 was also dismissed. 2. The facts related to the issue involved in the matter are that the plaintiff/ petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery and permanent injunction before the trial court stating that the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 5 are the members of the Joint Family and as per the Family Settlement dated 15.10.1995, there was a settlement of division of the property of the family as per the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 14.12.1995. In the plaint the details of the settlement and the issues of the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendants were mentioned. 3. The defendants No.1,2,3 and 6 filed their written statements separately. 4. The plaintiff/petitioner also filed separate rejoinders in regard to the written statements submitted by the defendants. 5. In the plaint the details of the settlement and the issues of the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendants were mentioned. 3. The defendants No.1,2,3 and 6 filed their written statements separately. 4. The plaintiff/petitioner also filed separate rejoinders in regard to the written statements submitted by the defendants. 5. On 04.07.2015, the learned trial court framed six issues for adjudication of the dispute raised in the civil suit, which are as under:- 1- vk;k oknh o izfroknh la[;k 1 yxk;r 5 ds e/; gq, ekSf[kd foHkktu fn0 15-10-95 ,oa eseksjs.Me vkWQ lSVyesUV fn0 14-12-95 ds vuqlkj fnYyh jksM fLFkr leLr QSDVªh 'ksM oknh dks izkIr gq;sA ftuesa ls uhps okys chp ds ,d 'ksM dk fdjk;k izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 dks [kpsZ ds fy, 2500&2500 :i;s nsus ds cnys oknh us NksM j[kk Fkk izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 ds }kjk uhps ds nks 'ksMksa dks feykdj ,d djds mldks flrEcj 2009 ls 15]000 :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls izfroknh la[;k&6 dks vukf/kÑr :i ls ,oa /kks[kk/kM+h djds fdjk;s ij ns fn;kA mDr ÑR; izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 ds }kjk 3 o 5 dks iSlk ,oa vkfFkZd ykHk nsus ds fy, fd;k x;kA blfy, oknh izfroknh la[;k 1 yxk;r 5 ls mDr lEifRr dk fdjk;k 01-09-09 ls 23-08-12 rd 15]000 :i;s ekfld dh nj ls e; C;kt 18 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls 36 ekg dk dqy 6 yk[k 75 gtkj :i;s la;qDr :i ls ,oa i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ---------oknh 2- vk;k ekSf[kd foHkktu fn0 15-10-95 o eseksj.Me fn0 14-12-95 esa uhps okyk ‘ksM ehuk dh 'kknh rd 'kknh ds [kpsZ ds mi;ksx esa j[kk tk;sxk] ntZ ugha FkkA 'kknh ds ckn uhps okyk 'ksM oknh dks feyus okyk rF; eseksj.Me esa ckn esa bckjr tksMdj oknh }kjk cढ+k;k x;k gSA izfroknh la0 1 ds }kjk uhps okyk 'ksM viuh o viuh iRuh ds xqtkjk HkRrs ds fy, j[kk x;k vkSj ogh mldk fdjk;k izkIr dj jgs gSaA mDr 'ksM oknh ds fgLls esa dHkh ugha vk;k\ --------izfroknh la[;k&1 yxk;r 5 3- vk;k okni= ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa ABCD ls of.kZr lEifRr izfroknh la[;k&2 ds }kjk 9000@& :i;s ekfld fdjk;s ij izfroknh la[;k&6 dks nh xbZ gS\ ---------izfroknh la[;k&2 yxk;r 5 o 6 4- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&6 o oknh ds e/; fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fizohVh vkWQ dkUVsDV ugha gSA blfy, izfroknh la[;k&6 oknh ls 50]000 :i;s fo'ks"k gtsZ ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ------izfroknh la[;k&6 5- vk;k oknh ds }kjk vkRegR;k djus o izfroknh la0 3 o 5 dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj caVokjk fn0 14-12-95 ij bUVjiksY;w'ku djds izfroknh la[;k&1 ds gLrk{kj djok,A ;fn gka rks nkos ij bldk D;k vlj gksxk\ ---------izfroknh la0&1 6- vuqrks"k 6. The plaintiff/petitioner then filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with section 151 CPC stating that the issues framed by the learned trial court are not as per law and the contents of the pleadings of the parties. It has been stated in the application that some issues which are required to be framed by the trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and are necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute, have been left out. It has been further stated in the application that in absence of proper issues, no proper adjudication could be made to impart justice. It has been further stated in the application that in absence of proper issues, no proper adjudication could be made to impart justice. The plaintiff/petitioner suggested as many as 14 issues to be framed, which are as under:- 1- vk;k i{kdkju ds e/; la;qDr ifjokj dh lEifŸk;ksa ds ckcr~ ekSf[kd foHkktu fnukad 15-10-1995 dks gqvk] ftldh ;knnk'r crkSj eSeksjs.Me vkWQ Qsfeyh lsVyesaV fnukad 14-12-1995 dks rhu izfr;ksa esa fu"ikfnr fd;k x;k] ftlds vuqlkj oknh fnYyh jksM fLFkr leLr 'ksMksa dk ekfyd gSA --------------------oknh 2- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&1 rk 5 us 14&12&1995 ls 26&04&2004 rd vius nkoksa] tokc&nkoksa ,oa lk{;ksa esa eSeksjs.Me vkWQ Qsfeyh lsVyesaV fnukad 14-12-1995 dks lgh ekudj Lohdkj fd;k gS] fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa esa vius tokc&nkoksa esa ,oa lk{;ksa esa bls is'k Hkh fd;k gS ,oa blds vk/kkj ij U;kf;d fu.kZ; Hkh djok;k gSA -------------------oknh 3- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&1 rk 5 us oknh ds LokfeRo ds 'ksMksa ls jkf'k o vkfFkZd ykHk izkIr djus ,oa lkFk gh vius nkf;Roksa ls cpus ds vk'k; ls vkilh feyhHkxr] "kM;a= ,oa /kks[kk/kM+h dj fnukad 14-12-1995 ds eSeksjs.Me esa bUVj iksys'ku dk feF;k vfHkdFku 27&04&2004 ls fd;k ,oa fofHkUu U;k;ky; dks xqejkg fd;kA -------------------oknh 4- eSeksjs.Me vkWQ Qsfeyh lsVyesaV fnukad 14-12-1995 ds vuqlkj uhps ds ,d 'ksM dk fdjk;k HkkUth dh 'kknh ds fy, 'kknh rd r; FkkA 'kknh ds i'pkr mDr 'ksM Hkh oknh dk gh gSA mDr dFku dks izfroknh la[;k&1 rk 3 us vius U;k;ky;ksa esa is'k iwoZ ds tokc&nkoksa esa Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA 5- vk;k oknh o izfroknh la[;k&3 o 5 }kjk izfroknh la[;k&1 o 2 dks caVokjs fnukad 15-10-1995 ds le; [kpsZ ckcr~ 25&25 lkS :i;s ekgokj ekSf[kd nsuk r; gqvk FkkA ftls izfroknh la[;k&1 us viuh Lofyf[kr ,oa gLrk{kfjr rgjhj fnukad 29-09-1996 esa Hkh Lohdkj fd;k gSA 6- vk;k oknh vkxzfgr okafNr LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk fo:) izfroknhx.k izkIRk djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA ---------------------oknh 7- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&1 rk 5 dh U;k;ky;ksa ds izfr ;g vo/kkj.kk gS] fd volj vuqlkj feF;k] nkos ,oa tokcnkos ,oa lk{; is'k dj U;k;ky;ksa dks vklkuh ls xqejkg dj vkfFkZd ykHk izkIr fd;k tk ldrk gS] tks izfroknhx.k foxr 20 o"kksaZ ls dj jgs gSaA ---------------------oknh 8- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&1 rk 5 us foxr 20 o"kksZa ls fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa esa >wBs nkos] tokc] nkos ,oe c;ku nsdj oknh dks ekufld o vkfFkZd uqdlku igqapk;k gSA --------------------oknh 9- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&1 rk 5 us oknh ds ikap 'ksMksa ls voS/k :i ls iSlk ,oa vkfFkZd ykHk izkIr fd;kA --------------------oknh 10- vk;k oknh izfroknh la[;k&1 rk 6 ls ckcr olwyh jkf'k rkjh[k 01-09-2009 ls 28-03-2012 rd e; C;kt& 6]75]000@& :i;s la;qDr :i ls ,oa i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] o rkolwyh bl ij 18 izfr'kr C;kt izkIRk djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA --------------------oknh 11- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&3] 4 ,oa 5 us izfroknh la[;k&1 o 2 ls vius vkfFkZd ykHk ds fy, volj vuqlkj feF;k nkos] tokc&nkos ,oa Ck;ku fnyko;sA 27-04-2004 ls --------------------oknh 12- vk;k oknh dks dksbZ okn dkj.k mRiUu ugha gqvkA --------------------izfroknh 13- vk;k oknh dk dksbZ fizohVh vkWQ dkUVsDV izfroknh la[;k&1 rk 6 ls ugha gSA --------------------izfroknh 14- vk;k okn esa felTokbZ.Mj vkWQ ikVhZt dk uqDl vkfjt gS] vr% fcuk ves.MsUV nkok pyus ;ksX; ugha gSA -------------------izfroknh 7. The defendant No.3 also moved an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC for framing certain additional issues and to discharge the defendant No.3 from proving the issues No.2 and 3. 8. The trial court disposed off both the applications filed under Order XIV rule 5 CPC; one filed by the plaintiff/petitioner and another by the defendant No.3, vide its order dated 03.05.2016 holding that issues No. 12 and 14 proposed by the plaintiff/ petitioner are being framed on the application of the defendant No.3 and the remaining proposed issues No. 1 to 11 and 13 are not required to be framed as the effect of proposed issues will be the same as of issues framed earlier. 9. The plaintiff/petitioner preferred a review petition under section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule (1)(a) read with section 151 CPC for reviewing the order dated 03.05.2016. The learned trial court vide its order dated 26.09.2017 dismissed the same. 10. The plaintiff/ petitioner by filing instant writ petition has prayed for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 03.05.2016 and 26.09.2017 passed by the trial court and has further prayed to allow his application filed under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC and further prayed to frame the proposed issues for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 11. During the course of arguments, the counsel appearing for the plaintiff/petitioner did not press for proposed issue Nos. 2,4,7,9,10 and 13. 12. Plaintiff/petitioner, present in person submitted that the orders dated 03.05.2016 and 26.09.2017 passed by the trial court are not legally sustainable being contrary to the provisions of law and also the facts of the case. He further submitted that the issue No.1 framed by the trial court is very large, complicated and very difficult to understand. It is the settled principle of law that the issues to be made very specific and clear so that the parties can lead their evidence in effective manner to prove the issue. He further submitted that the issues which he has proposed are on the basis of the pleadings and it cannot be said that they have the same effect as like the effect of issues already framed. He further submitted that the issues which he has proposed are on the basis of the pleadings and it cannot be said that they have the same effect as like the effect of issues already framed. He further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate that the omission to frame the issues affects the proper and effective adjudication of the dispute raised in the suit and stated that the trial court has not framed the issue regarding; permanent injunction; the ownership of all sheds of the factory situated at Delhi Road; admissions of defendants about memorandum of family settlement, filing of the false suits in different courts by defendants by way of misleading those courts and also making of false statements in different courts. He further submitted that discharging the defendant No.3 from proving the issues No.2 and 3 is also illegal as the defendant No.3 in his written statement has categorically has made an allegation against the plaintiff /petitioner of interpolation in the family settlement. He also submitted that the proposed issues which are being pressed by the plaintiff/ petitioner, are just and necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute raised in the suit. He also submitted that the trial court has not properly appreciated the provisions of Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act while deciding the application. 13. Mr. A.K. Jain, counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents submitted that the trial court has framed the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties as per the requirement of Order XIV Rule 1 CPC. He further submitted that the trial court has considered the material available on the record and the plaintiff/ petitioner has failed to show that how the proposed issues are necessary for adjudication of the dispute. He also submitted that this case is not a rare case to exercise the powers vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Considered the submissions advanced by both the counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the record available with the writ petition. 15. During the course of arguments, the plaintiff/petitioner did not press the proposed issue Nos. 2,4,7,9, 10 and 13 and further the proposed issue Nos. 12 and 14 have already been framed by the trial court on the application filed by the defendant No.3. 15. During the course of arguments, the plaintiff/petitioner did not press the proposed issue Nos. 2,4,7,9, 10 and 13 and further the proposed issue Nos. 12 and 14 have already been framed by the trial court on the application filed by the defendant No.3. Hence, this Court is making observations in regard to the proposed issue Nos. 1,3,5,6, 8 and 11. 16. Order XIV Rule 1 CPC speaks that the issues framed for trial arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other and the material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue. The issue No.1 framed by the trial court on 04.07.2015 includes the issue of family settlement between the parties; the issue about the fact of letting the two sheds on rent to defendant No.6 by the defendants No.1 and 2 and it also includes the issue of extending the financial benefit to defendants No.3 and 5 by the defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff/ petitioner on filing the application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with section 151 CPC proposed the issue Nos.1,2 and 5 as distinct issues in relation to the subject matter of issue No.1 framed by the trial court. 17. Considering the law as provided under Order XIV Rule 1 CPC, this Court finds that the issue No.1 framed by the trial court is not as per the requirement under sub-rule (2) of Rule (1) under Order XIV CPC. 18. The submissions of the plaintiff/ petitioner as regards issue No.8 as suggested by the plaintiff/ petitioner cannot be appreciated for the reason that whatever the act of any party in the proceedings of other case, cannot be adjudicated in the present suit by framing an issue as the conduct of a party in the proceedings of a case is to be considered and adjudicated in the proceedings of this case only. 19. The defendants No.2 and 3 in their written statements have categorically stated that the plaintiff/ petitioner has made interpolation in the memorandum of the family settlement dated 14.12.1995. 20. 19. The defendants No.2 and 3 in their written statements have categorically stated that the plaintiff/ petitioner has made interpolation in the memorandum of the family settlement dated 14.12.1995. 20. In view of the pleadings in the written statements submitted by the defendants No.2,3 and 5 as stated above, the burden of proving is upon all the defendants who asserted the allegations of interpolation in the memorandum of the family settlement dated 14.12.1995 against the plaintiff. Therefore, discharging the defendants No.2,3 and 4 from the burden of proving the issue No.2 is not sustainable. 21. There was also a submission of the plaintiff/ petitioner that the facts relating to the oral partition and the memorandum of family settlement dated 14.12.1995 were taken in the written statement of defendant No.1 and also in the written statements of defendants No. 2 and 5. The issue No.2 has also been framed on the basis of the pleadings submitted by the defendants No.2 and 5. In such circumstances, the onus to prove the newly framed issues vide order dated 03.05.2016, by the defendant No.3 only, is not sufficient. The other defendants who have made specific pleadings in their written statements in regard to the said issues, are also to be made liable for proving the same. 22. After going through the contents of the plaint and the written statements, prima facie this Court finds that the burden of proof also lies upon the defendants No.2 and 5. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the trial court requires reconsideration. 23. Order XIV Rule (3) CPC provides that the Court may frame the issues on the basis of the allegations made on oath by the parties and made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit and the contents of documents produced by either party. 24. The burden of proof as per law of evidence lies on the person who makes assertion or claim to that effect. 25. The plaintiff/ petitioner has also submitted that he has filed a suit for recovery and permanent injunction and has asserted the pleadings for seeking permanent injunction. The learned trial court has not framed any issue in regard to the permanent injunction. 25. The plaintiff/ petitioner has also submitted that he has filed a suit for recovery and permanent injunction and has asserted the pleadings for seeking permanent injunction. The learned trial court has not framed any issue in regard to the permanent injunction. Bare perusal of the pleadings enclosed with the writ petition shows that the suit was filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner for recovery and permanent injunction but there is no issue framed in regard to the permanent injunction, though the plaintiff/ petitioner has proposed the issue in regard to the permanent injunction as proposed issue No.6. 26. Counsel appearing for the respondents /defendants also argued that it is not a rare case to exercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India but in view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that it is a fit case where the powers of superintendence vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is required to be exercised. 27. In view of the discussion made above, this Court deems proper to quash and set aside the orders dated 03.05.2016 and 26.09.2017 to the extent of the application filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC and direct the trial court to decide the application filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC afresh, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and without prejudice by any observations of this Court. It is also made clear that since the plaintiff/ petitioner while making submissions before this Court did not press the proposed issue Nos.2,4,7,9,10 and 14, no fresh decision is required in regard thereto. 28. The writ petition is disposed off as directed and observed above. 29. Since the writ petition has been disposed off, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed off.