ORDER : 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 07-04-2025 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.1453 of 2024 rejecting an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 14 Rule 5(1) & (2) of the CPC seeking recast of issues framed on 20-11-2024, by the issues proposed in the application as additional issues and deleting issues 4 and 5 originally framed. 2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - The 1 st petitioner-M/s Srinivasa Trust (‘the Trust’ for short) which is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 is said to be running multiple educational institutions including Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre. The issue revolves round the suit schedule property. On 30-05-2000 the suit schedule property is purchased by the 1 st respondent in terms of a registered sale deed. The 1 st respondent is said to have entered into an agreement of sale on 13-03-2023 with the Trust in respect of the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 80/- crores. Pursuant to the sale agreement, the 2 nd petitioner being the Managing Trustee of the Trust, authorizes a sum of Rs. 70/- crores to be transferred through RTGS in favour of the 1 st respondent as advance amount and what is said to have been remaining is only Rs. 10/- crores, which was to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. 2.1. The plaintiffs were thereafter intimated or came to their knowledge that the 1 st respondent is likely to alienate the property in favour of some third parties and, therefore, file suit in O.S.No.1453 of 2024 for specific performance of sale agreement dated 13-03-2023. The concerned Court grants an ex-parte injunction restraining the 1 st respondent from alienating the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs also communicate to the District Registrar and all the jurisdictional Sub-Registrars regarding the ex- parte injunction granted on 26-02-2024. During the subsistence of these proceedings, on 13-03-2024, the 2 nd respondent/2 nd defendant is said to have purchased the suit schedule property in terms of the sale deed dated 13-03-2024. The allegation now is, that the 1 st respondent has sold the property during the subsistence of the ex-parte injunction and, therefore, it is in violation of ex- parte injunction. 2.2. The allegation now is, that the 1 st respondent has sold the property during the subsistence of the ex-parte injunction and, therefore, it is in violation of ex- parte injunction. 2.2. During the subsistence of the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.1453 of 2024, the 2 nd respondent institutes O.S.No.2897 of 2024 for bare injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering with the possession of the 2 nd defendant/2 nd respondent. The BBMP is said to have issued khatha on the strength of the sale deed executed in favour of the 2 nd defendant. On 20-07-2024, written statement is filed by the 1 st respondent in O.S.No.1453 of 2024 and on subsequent dates, written statement is filed by other defendants. In the suit preferred by the 2 nd defendant in O.S.No.2897 of 2024, the Court grants injunction against the petitioners/plaintiffs concerning the suit schedule property on 01-10-2024. The plaintiffs then prefer M.F.A.No.6603 of 2024 calling in question the order of temporary injunction granted in the said original suit. The same is allowed in part, by modifying the order of the trial Court granting injunction, to that of parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. After the said order, issues are framed by the concerned Court on 20-11-2024. On framing of issues, the plaintiffs filed interlocutory application in O.S.No.1453 of 2024 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint which is allowed by the Court. The amended plaint is also filed by the plaintiffs and the respondents have filed additional statement of objections in the light of the amendment. There is no issue in the lis up to this stage. On 14-02-2025, the plaintiffs file I.A.No.8 under Order XIV Rule 5(1) and (2) of the CPC seeking recast of the issues that were framed on 20-11-2024. The said application comes to be rejected, the rejection of which has driven the plaintiffs to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri G.L.Vishwanath, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners being the plaintiffs are entitled to seek recast of the issues, as appropriate issues will lead to appropriate trial. 3. Heard Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri G.L.Vishwanath, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the petitioners being the plaintiffs are entitled to seek recast of the issues, as appropriate issues will lead to appropriate trial. What led to framing of issues on 20-11-2024 was I.A.No.5 which was filed by the defendants and the issues were framed on the basis of the written statement; while the same kind of application is filed by the petitioners, it is turned down on the score that for a suit of specific performance, possession is immaterial. The learned senior counsel would submit that the concerned Court has failed to frame an issue whether the petitioners/plaintiffs prove the effect of novation of the contract, on a complaint for the simple reason that the plaintiffs had entered into an agreement with the 1 st defendant on 13-03-2023 and prior to that, the 3 rd respondent is said to have entered into an agreement of sale on 07-11-2022 and a supplementary agreement of sale is executed by the 1 st respondent on 13-03-2024 in favour of the 2 nd defendant. All these factors had to be projected by way of an appropriate issue. He would submit that the concerned Court has failed to consider the importance of framing of appropriate issue and has erroneously rejected the application and wanted to take up the matter on a day-to-day basis. He would seek that the order be quashed and recast of the issues be directed. 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel representing respondents 2 and 3 would vehemently refute the submissions by contending that the petitioners have filed the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the 1 st defendant. The 1 st defendant did not disclose the said suit or interim order passed therein and executes a sale deed after the injunction on 13-03-2024 in favour of respondents 2 and 3. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 were put in possession of the suit schedule property. Respondents 2 and 3 were later impleaded as additional defendants on consent of the plaintiffs. BBMP has issued khatha in favour of the 2 nd respondent and the 2 nd respondent is in lawful possession of the property. Accordingly, respondents 2 and 3 were put in possession of the suit schedule property. Respondents 2 and 3 were later impleaded as additional defendants on consent of the plaintiffs. BBMP has issued khatha in favour of the 2 nd respondent and the 2 nd respondent is in lawful possession of the property. I.A.No.8 filed by the plaintiffs was allowed in part – one additional issue was framed and the other was denied. The other, concerning the issue of unregistered sale agreement dated 13-03-2023 where the plaintiffs allege delivery of possession. 5.1. The learned senior counsel would submit that delivery of possession would not mean being in possession. Issue No.5 is appropriately framed, whether respondent No.1 has put respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in possession of the suit schedule property and whether they are bona fide purchasers. When there is already an issue with regard to whether defendants 2 and 3 have been put in possession by the 1 st defendant, there need not be an issue as to whether the plaintiffs are in possession or otherwise. It is rightly dismissed by the concerned Court is his emphatic submission. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for consideration is: “Whether the application in I.A.No.8 was necessary to be allowed or otherwise?” 7. The application, in the suit, is preferred under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC. Order XIV Rule 5 reads as follows: “ 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.” Before embarking upon consideration of the purport of Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, I deem it appropriate to notice the interpretation of Order XIV Rule 5 CPC by the coordinate Bench of this Court and other High Courts. 8. 8. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of P.S. Shivakumar v. P.H. Subbarayappa , 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2263 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 14. Under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC the Court has power to amend the issues framed including framing of additional issue at any time before passing of a decree on such terms as it thinks fit, which in its opinion may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties. A bare reading of Order 14 Rule 1(1) CPC would indicate that when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other, then, an issue would arise for being framed. Whoever desires any Court to give a judgment as to any legal right dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist, eiincumbitprobatio qui dicit, non qui negate - The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him would denies. In other words, burden will lie on the party who asserts the fact to be taken note of by the Court in his favour and as such, burden shifts on the person so asserting, cum per rerum naturam factum negantisprobationulla sit - Since by the nature of things he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof. In other words, a negative is usually incapable of proof.” (Emphasis supplied) Though not in elaboration, the learned single Judge holds that under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, the Court has the power to amend the issues framed including framing of additional issues, at any time before passing of the decree, on such terms as it thinks fit for determining the controversy between the parties. A bare reading of Order XIV Rule 5(1) & (2) CPC would indicate that when material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other, that would become an issue that is to be framed. 9. A coordinate Bench in the case of D.R. Narasimhamurthy v. Shri Srinivasa, Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2015 decided on 27-01-2020 holds as follows: “…. …. …. POINT NO.1: 12. Order XIV of CPC deals with framing of issues. 9. A coordinate Bench in the case of D.R. Narasimhamurthy v. Shri Srinivasa, Writ Petition No. 12102 of 2015 decided on 27-01-2020 holds as follows: “…. …. …. POINT NO.1: 12. Order XIV of CPC deals with framing of issues. Perusal of the said Order XIV Rule 1 of CPC indicates that whenever there is a proposition of fact or law which is affirmed or denied by the other, an issue has to be framed by the Court and all issues raised by the Court are to be answered in the Judgment to be passed, in terms of Order XIV Rule 5. The Court may before passing the decree, amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit. 13. In the present situation, it is an admitted fact that 1 st respondent-plaintiff had filed an application for amendment of the plaint and the relief sought for. It is also an admitted fact that it is in respect of this amendment that the petitioner filed his additional written statement. It is not that the petitioner/1 st defendant has sought to amend his written statement by filing an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, the additional written statement was filed on account of the amendment carried out by the plaintiff. Therefore, the contents of the additional written statement cannot be controlled or restricted. At the stage when issues are to be framed, order XIV does not contemplate any enquiry into the veracity or genuineness of the pleadings. What is contemplated under order XIV is that any proposition of fact or law which is essential for a decision to be rendered in the matter would have to form a basis for framing of issues by the Court. Thus, whenever there is an additional pleadings, be it an amended plaint or an additional written statement, if and so, those pleadings raise any material proposition of fact or law, it would be the duty of the Court to frame issues arising out of such new material proposition of fact or law. Needless to say that in the event the amendment or additional written statement does not raise any new material proposition of fact or law, there would be no need to frame any additional issues. … … … POINT NO.2: 15. Needless to say that in the event the amendment or additional written statement does not raise any new material proposition of fact or law, there would be no need to frame any additional issues. … … … POINT NO.2: 15. Learned counsel for 1 st respondent has contended that since pleadings raised in the additional written statement where mutually destructive or dishonest, vis à-vis the pleadings raised in the written statement filed earlier in O.S.No.272/2007, the trial Court was right in going through the merits of the said pleadings made in the additional written statement and having held it to be contradictory and destructive, the trial Court was right in refusing the oral request of the petitioner to frame additional issues. This contention of the learned counsel for 1 st respondent/plaintiff cannot be accepted for the reason that at the stage of framing of issues, the Court is not required to examine the merits or demerits, genuineness or otherwise of the pleadings filed before the Court. That would arise at the stage when the Court is examining the pleadings and evidence on record and coming to a conclusion thereon at the ultimate stage of Judgment being rendered. 16. If the contention of 1 st respondent/plaintiff is accepted, the same would result in a disastrous consequence of a finding being given by the trial Court at the stage of framing of issues itself. The trial Court on examination of pleadings on record, if it comes to a conclusion that there are material proposition of fact or law, affirmed or denied by either of the parties, the trial Court is required to proceed with framing of issues. 17. In view of the above, point No.2 is answered by holding that the trial Court is not required to dwell on merits or demerits of the pleadings raised, genuineness or falsehood of the pleadings raised, whether the pleadings raised in an amended written statement is contradictory to the earlier written statement filed, etc. The trial Court is only to frame issues on the basis of the material proposition of fact or law raised in the amended or additional written statement which is filed.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Abbott Healthcare Private Limited v. Raj Kumar Prasad, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6657 , has held as follows: “…. …. …. 12. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Abbott Healthcare Private Limited v. Raj Kumar Prasad, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6657 , has held as follows: “…. …. …. 12. The counsel for the plaintiff, in rejoinder, refers to S. Surjit Singh Sahni v. Brij Mohan Kaur, (1997) 65 DLT 670 and on order dated 30 th April, 2013 in CS (OS) No. 1457/2009 titled Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and against which no appeal is stated to have been preferred, holding that framing of issues is the duty of the Court and rejection of an earlier prayer does not debar a fresh prayer for framing an issue if it arises from the pleadings and ought to have been framed and has mistakenly not been framed. It is argued that the Court, at the time of framing of issues on 21 st March, 2016, has not applied its mind and not refused to frame the issue about invalidity. It is thus contended that the plaintiff can apply for framing of additional issue. 13. I tend to agree with the counsel for plaintiff. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), vide Order XIV Rule 5 empowers the Court to, at any time before passing a decree, amend the issues or frame additional issues and provides that all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the maters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. Thus, merely because at the time of framing of issues, an issue though arising from pleadings, has not been pressed and/or framed would not stop a subsequent application. The position may be different where an issue is pressed and not framed by a speaking order. In such case, the bar of res judicata, also applicable at successive stages of same proceeding, may come in way of an application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC. However, in the present case, a perusal of order dated 21 st March, 2016, when issues were framed, does not show any such thing.” (Emphasis supplied) 11. The High Court of Delhi, in its later judgment in Sana Herbals Private Limited v. Mohsin Dehlvi , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4482 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 13. It is the settled position of law that it is the obligation of the Court to frame issues. The High Court of Delhi, in its later judgment in Sana Herbals Private Limited v. Mohsin Dehlvi , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4482 has held as follows: “…. …. …. 13. It is the settled position of law that it is the obligation of the Court to frame issues. In this regard reference may be made to paragraph 7 of the S. Surjit Singh Sahni (supra): “ 7. A perusal of the several provisions contained in Order 14 of the CPC would be apposite. An issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Every such proposition shall form the subject of a distinct issue. Primarily it is the obligation of the Court to frame the issues. Failure on the part of the Court may be remedied by either party inviting attention of the Court to the need of framing such an issue either by participating in the process of settlement of issues or by moving an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC. It is obligatory on the part of the Court to frame an issue once it is satisfied that an issue which should have been framed was not framed. If the trial court fails in framing an issue or fails to remedy its earlier failure then even an appellate court is vested with power of framing an issue under Rule 25 of Order 41 of the CPC. (Emphasis supplied) 14. In light of the dicta above, even if the counsel for the defendant did not press for framing of the issues sought to be framed now, it would not mean that the Court cannot, at a subsequent stage, frame such issues if they emerge from the pleadings in the suit. The language of Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC is very wide and empowers the Court to amend the issues so framed or frame additional issues at any time before passing of the final decree.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by this Court and that of the High Court of Delhi what would unmistakably emerge is, the power of the Court to frame issues, recast issues and frame additional issues at any stage. On a coalesce of the judgments rendered by this Court and that of the High Court of Delhi what would unmistakably emerge is, the power of the Court to frame issues, recast issues and frame additional issues at any stage. Framing of issues is the duty of the Court and rejection of an earlier prayer for framing an issue does not debar another application based upon the pleadings and the defence. The language of Order XIV Rule 5 CPC is wide and empowers the Court to amend the issues so framed or frame additional issues at any time before passing of the decree. With this being the interpretation of Order XIV Rule 5 CPC by Courts, the order of the concerned Court rejecting the application becomes necessary to be noticed. The order records the earlier issues and the issues that are sought to be recast. The order reads as follows: “…. …. …. 7. POINT No.1:- Plaintiffs have filed this suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 13.03.2023 allegedly executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs. It is the case of the defendants that, the defendant No.1 had executed the registered agreement of sale dated 07.11.2022 in respect of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, supplementary registered agreement of sale came to be executed on 16.02.2024 by enhancing the consideration amount in novation of the earlier registered agreement of sale dated 07.11.2022. Based on which, on 13.03.2024, the defendant No.1 has executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property, for which, the defendant No.3 is a consenting party. Based on the pleadings, this Court has framed the following issues on 20.11.2024: 1 Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the defendant No.1 entered into agreement of sale dated 13.03.2023 agreeing to sell the suit schedule properties to plaintiff No.1 Trust for total sale consideration of Rs.80 Crores and received Rs.70 Crores as advance amount? 2 Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Crores? 3 Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, she has availed loan of Rs.70 Crores from the plaintiffs and for the security of the same, she has executed agreement of sale dated 13.03.2023? 2 Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract by paying balance sale consideration of Rs.10 Crores? 3 Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, she has availed loan of Rs.70 Crores from the plaintiffs and for the security of the same, she has executed agreement of sale dated 13.03.2023? 4 Whether the defendant No.1 further proves that, she had executed registered agreement of sale dated 07.11.2022 in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of Anushka Constructions / defendant No.3 and in terms of said agreement of sale, on 13.03.2024, she has executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on behalf of defendant No.3? 5 Whether the defendant Nos.2 & 3 prove that, in view of registered agreement of sale dated 07.11.2022 and supplementary agreement dated 16.02.2024 in respect of the suit schedule properties, the defendant No.1 has executed the registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024 in their favour and put them in possession of the same and they are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration? 6 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for? 7 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as claimed? 8 What Decree or Order? 8. In the IA, the plaintiffs have prayed to frame additional issue No.1 as to whether the plaintiffs prove their possession over the suit schedule property. On perusal of the agreement of sale dated 13.03.2023, based on which, this suit is filed by the plaintiffs, there are no averments regarding handing over of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Further, in a suit for specific performance, question of possession of the parties is immaterial. If the plaintiffs succeed in the suit, the possession will follow the title, hence, this issue do not arise. 9. Additional issue No.2 sought to be framed is whether the plaintiffs prove that, the defendant No.1 has entered into a supplementary agreement dated 16.02.2024 in novation of the agreement of sale dated 07.11.2022. The burden is on the defendants to prove these things that, whether the defendant No.1 entered into supplementary agreement dated 16.02.2024 in novation of the agreement of sale dated 07.11.2022 and not the plaintiffs. Further, in issue No.5, it is already covered, hence, again framing of additional issue No.2 casting burden on the plaintiffs regarding proving the case of the defendants do not arise. 10. Further, in issue No.5, it is already covered, hence, again framing of additional issue No.2 casting burden on the plaintiffs regarding proving the case of the defendants do not arise. 10. Additional issue No.3 sought to be proved is that, whether the plaintiffs are the prior agreement holders. Issue Nos.1 and 4 which are already framed on 20.11.2024 are covered with this aspect as to which agreement is prior agreement, hence, in view of the issue Nos.1 to 5, which are already framed, this additional issue No.3 do not arise. 11. Additional issue No.4 sought to be framed by the plaintiff is regarding registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 as null and void in view of violation of ex-parte injunction order dated 26.02.2024. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, in view of the ex-parte injunction order passed by this Court on 26.02.2024, the defendant No.1 knowing fully well about the ex-parte injunction order has executed the sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2, hence, the said sale deed is null and void. Along with this IA, the plaintiffs have filed IA No.9 for amendment of pleadings to that effect. Hence, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, the execution of registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024, is in violation of the ex-parte injunction order dated 26.02.2024. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, this additional No.4 sought to be framed is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. 12. In the application, the plaintiffs have prayed to delete issue No.4. Order 14 Rule 5(1) & (2) of CPC reads as under: 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 distinct issue. 13. Based on the averments of the written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 3, issue Nos.4 and 5 are framed. (3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of distinct issue. 13. Based on the averments of the written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 3, issue Nos.4 and 5 are framed. It is the specific case of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 that, in view of the registered agreement of sale dated 07.11.2022 and supplementary agreement dated 16.02.2024, defendant No.1 being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property has executed the registered sale deed on 13.03.2024 in favour of the defendant No.2, for which, defendant No.3 is a confirming party. Based on the material propositions of defendant Nos.1 to 3, these issue Nos.4 & 5 are framed. Hence, issue Nos.4 & 5 cannot be deleted. Under the above circumstances, I answer point No.1 is partly in the affirmative. 14. POINT No.2 :- In view of the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER I.A.No.8 filed by the plaintiffs under 14 Rule 5(1) & (2) of CPC, is partly allowed. Addl. Issue No.1 is framed, whether the plaintiffs prove that, the registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is null and void for violation of ex-parte injunction order dated 26.02.2024?” The concerned Court holds that the application seeking to delete issues 4 and 5 is unnecessary. The issue whether, defendants 2 and 3 would prove that in terms of a registered agreement prior to the agreement under which the petitioners are in possession of, defendants 2 and 3 were put in possession, is already in place. The burden to prove possession is thus on the defendants. Therefore, any issue with regard to the petitioners being in possession or novation of contract is unnecessary to be framed. Therefore, the Court allows the application in part, accepts one issue to be recast and declines the other. The recasting of issues sought is as follows: 1. “Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are in physical possession of the schedule property? 2. Whether Plaintiffs prove that Defendant No.1 has entered into a supplementary agreement dated 16.02.2024 in novation of the agreement of sale dated 07.11.2022? 3. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the prior agreement holders with respect to the suit schedule property? 4. “Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are in physical possession of the schedule property? 2. Whether Plaintiffs prove that Defendant No.1 has entered into a supplementary agreement dated 16.02.2024 in novation of the agreement of sale dated 07.11.2022? 3. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the prior agreement holders with respect to the suit schedule property? 4. Whether plaintiffs prove that the registered sale deed dated 13.03.2024 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 is null and void, for violation of ex-parte injunction order dated 26.02.2024?” The order of the concerned Court is, on the face of it, erroneous. The plaintiffs have amended the plaint pursuant to an order passed by the Court under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. Issues were framed on 20-11-2024, not on the basis of the plaint but on the basis of the written statement. It is an admitted fact that most of the issues deal with whether the defendants prove everything. Therefore, it was necessary for the concerned Court to have included the issue as sought by the plaintiffs, as the plaintiffs are also entitled to prove that they were put in possession of the property on 13-03-2023 when the 1 st defendant enters into an agreement with the plaintiffs, at which point in time the 1 st defendant receives consideration of Rs. 70/- crores and what remained was only payment of Rs. 10/- crores. 13. The other inclusion that is sought is, whether there has been novation of agreement. The novation of the agreement the plaintiffs project is, defendant No.1 entering into an agreement of sale with the plaintiffs and again entering into a sale deed with defendants 2 and 3, on the strength of an earlier agreement on 07-11-2022. In the light of maze of these disputed questions of fact, the appropriate issue would guide the result. In that light the application deserves to be allowed. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The order impugned dated 07-04-2025 is modified and the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in I.A.No.8 seeking recast or drawing up of additional issues, which is allowed in part, is further allowed. The concerned court shall recast the issues including the following issues 1 and 3: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are in physical possession of the schedule property? 3. The concerned court shall recast the issues including the following issues 1 and 3: 1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are in physical possession of the schedule property? 3. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the prior agreement holders with respect to the suit schedule property? (iii) The concerned Court is directed to regulate its procedure in terms of this order, before proceeding further.