ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. The petitioners/plaintiffs, by way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have assailed the validity of the order dated 20.02.2025 (Annex.7) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh (‘Trial Court’) whereby application preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as ‘CPC’) has been partly allowed. The prayer made in the instant petition reads as under: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed on behalf of petitioner that this writ petition in the nature of certiorari may kindly be allowed and :- i] By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 20.02.2025 (Annex.7) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Case No.09/2018 (C.I.S. No. 09/2018) (Anita Devi @ Maya & Anr. Vs. Omprakash) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of rejection of petitioner's prayer; and the applications filed by the petitioners. (plaintiffs) under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC may kindly be ordered to be allowed and burden of proving in issue no.1 may kindly be ordered to lie on the respondent. ii] Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favor of the petitioners. iii] Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaring the registered Will dated 29.10.2013 to be void, partition of the suit properties and declaring the petitioners/plaintiffs to have 1/3 rd share each in the disputed property. After service of the summons, the respondent/defendant filed his written statement while denying the facts stated in the plaint. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed four issues vide order dated 09.01.2019 (Annex.4). Subsequently, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC seeking amendment/re-framing of the issues and also framing of new issues, which was contested by the respondent/defendant by filing reply (Annex.6). The learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 (Annex.7) proceeded to partly allowed the application (Annex.5) preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same instant petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 3. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 20.02.2025 (Annex.7) proceeded to partly allowed the application (Annex.5) preferred by the petitioners/plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same instant petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned trial court has without dealing with the proposed issue Nos.1 and 2 as prayed for in application (Annex.5) has rejected these proposed issues. He also submitted that the learned trial court has erred in fastening the burden of proof of issue no.1, as framed vide order dated 09.01.2019 (Annex.4), upon the petitioners as the burden to prove the validity of will lies upon the propounder and in the present case the respondent has averred in his written statement that the will (Annex.1) was duly executed in his favour by father of petitioners. He also submitted that the learned trial court, despite taking note of the order dated 24.02.2021 wherein it was observed by the learned trial court itself that the validity of will has to be first proved by the respondent, has put the burden to prove issue no.1 upon the petitioners. He also submitted that if the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances the initial onus is upon the propounder of will to remove these suspicious circumstances. He also submitted that in the present case, the petitioners, being legal heirs, have been excluded from the will and that in itself is a suspicious circumstance and hence, the burden to prove validity of will lies upon the respondent (propounder of the will in question). For this submission he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kavita Kanwar vs. Pamela Mehta and ors., (2021) 11 SCC 209 . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the learned trial court has erred in not considering the legal proposition i.e., propounder has to prove the validity of will, and has framed the issue No.1 in negative form by putting burden of proof of this issue on the petitioners. He also submitted that application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC can be moved at any stage before the passing of decree. 5. He also submitted that application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC can be moved at any stage before the passing of decree. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the proposed issues no.3 as prayed for in application (Annex.5) was in respect to the relief of permanent injunction, however the learned trial court has wrongly rejected this proposed issue on the ground that framing separate issues for each relief prayed is not necessary. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant submitted that since the petitioners/plaintiffs have questioned the genuineness and correctness of the registered Will executed in favour of respondent/defendant, therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in putting the burden to prove the issue No.1 upon the petitioners/plaintiffs. He also submitted, while relying upon Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that when a party asserts a fact, the burden of proof of the same lies upon such party. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant also submitted that initially four issues were framed by the learned Trial Court on 09.01.2019, however, the petitioners have not challenged the order dated 09.01.2019 (Annex.4) and the petitioners have already led their evidence. He also submitted that it was at the stage of respondent/defendant’s evidence that the application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC seeking amendment/framing of the issues was filed i.e. in the year 2025 with a sole motive to delay the proceedings. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. This court finds that the learned trial court vide order dated 09.01.2019 (Annex.4) framed following issues: 10. This court also finds that the petitioners filed application (Annex.5) with the prayer to amend/frame some issues which are reproduced as under: 11. The learned trial court vide order dated 20.02.2025 has partly allowed the application (Annex.5) and framed/re-framed some issues in the following manner: 12. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.02.2025 (Annex.7) as the proposed issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 have been declined to be added. The learned trial court vide order dated 20.02.2025 has partly allowed the application (Annex.5) and framed/re-framed some issues in the following manner: 12. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 20.02.2025 (Annex.7) as the proposed issue Nos.1, 2 and 3 have been declined to be added. So far as the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court has nowhere dealt with proposed issue Nos.1 and 2 is concerned, this court finds that the learned trial court has observed that the burden to prove validity of the will in question is on the propounder of the will i.e., the respondent, as he has taken the defence to the effect that the will in question is registered and has been duly executed in his favour. Learned trial court has also observed that the burden to prove that the will in question is forged and fabricated and is not in accordance with the provisions of law, is on the petitioners as they have challenged the validity of the will in question and has also observed that the burden to prove the validity of will, and the burden to prove that the will is forged and fabricated and is not in accordance with the provisions of law are two different circumstances. 13. Learned trial court has also taken note of an earlier order dated 24.02.2021 (Annex.R/1 Colly.), which has attained finality inasmuch as not having been challenged, wherein the learned trial court while rejecting the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs’ for leading more evidence to prove Issue No.1 made the following observation: 13.1. Learned trial court, after referring to the afore-cited observation in the order dated 24.02.2021 (Annex.R/1 Colly.) has observed that the said order has attained finality, inasmuch as the said order was not challenged. Thus, after referring to the observation made therein (as quoted in the preceding paragraph) the learned trial court has observed that neither issue no.1 has been framed negatively nor issue no.1, so framed, would hinder the adjudication of the disputed subject matter between the parties. 13.2. Thus, after referring to the observation made therein (as quoted in the preceding paragraph) the learned trial court has observed that neither issue no.1 has been framed negatively nor issue no.1, so framed, would hinder the adjudication of the disputed subject matter between the parties. 13.2. This court, upon perusal of order dated 24.02.2021 (Annex.R/1 Colly) as well as order dated 20.02.2024, finds that the learned trial court has taken note of the well established proposition of law that the initial onus to prove the validity of the will lies on the propounder of the will, and once this initial onus is discharged the burden to prove that such will is forged and fabricated and not in accordance with the provisions of law would lie upon the person who challenges the validity of the will in question. In the present case the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit (Annex.2), inter-alia, for declaring the registered Will dated 29.10.2013 (Annex.1) to be null and void on the ground of the same being forged and fabricated. Thus, the burden to prove issue no.1, which has been framed in this respect, lies on the petitioners/plaintiffs, however, the initial onus to prove the validity of the will in question is upon the respondent as he has taken defence that the will in question has been duly executed in his favour and is also registered. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court has not dealt with the proposed issue No.1 and 2 is not sustainable. 14. As far as contention of the counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs in respect to proposed issue no.3 is concerned, this court finds that the learned trial court has rejected to frame proposed issue no.3 i.e., “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction in respect to the suit property?”, on the ground that the same is covered under the issue No.4, which pertains to relief. Learned trial court has also observed that neither it is necessary to frame separate issues for the each relief as prayed for by the plaintiffs in their plaint (Annex.2) nor there is any bar in law to frame single issue for all the reliefs prayed for in the plaint. Learned trial court has also observed that neither it is necessary to frame separate issues for the each relief as prayed for by the plaintiffs in their plaint (Annex.2) nor there is any bar in law to frame single issue for all the reliefs prayed for in the plaint. This court concurs with the finding given by the learned trial court in this respect as the object behind the framing of issues is to streamline the adjudication of the controversy in the suit and as the proposed issue no.3, pertains to the relief of Permanent Injunction in respect of the suit property, the same is covered under the issue no.4, which has already been framed by the learned trial court in respect to the reliefs claimed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in their plaint (Annex.2). 15. It is important to note here that the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate and must be exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, where there is a manifest miscarriage of justice. In the present case this court does not find any error in the impugned order therefore, the instant petition does not require interference by this court. 16. In view of above discussion, the petition lacks merit and, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. 17. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.No order as to the costs.