judge, court, gavel-7602999.jpg

Report by Umang Kanwat

Issues only arise when one party affirms and the other party disputes a crucial truth or legal premise. The legal or factual assertions are considered material propositions. Such essential claims must be made by the plaintiff to establish his legal standing. Similarly, the defendant must allege to support his defence. A distinct issue won’t arise unless each relevant statement is supported by the plaintiff and refuted by the defendant.

The Court may revise already-framed questions, frame new issues, recast matters as may be necessary to resolve a dispute before it, or strike out concerns that have been improperly brought or formed, according to Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC. As a result, the Court has the power to alter or eliminate the concerns as necessary.

The case of PRIME TIME INDIA Vs. SOMNATH VIJ revolves around Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC, wherein the court tries to evaluate if the contentions on which the applicant argues are satisfactory or not. The word “issue” has not been defined in the CPC, however, Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC indicates that “issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other”.


The applicant in the present case filed an application requesting the Honourable Supreme Court of India to remove certain legal issues framed by the defendants in the case considering them to be baseless and motionless under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC. The application is based on a previous case over a disputed property where the present applicant was the defendant and the case ended with a settlement between the parties.

Applicant’s Contentions:

The applicant has filled out this application regarding striking off certain issues that were framed in the case over a property dispute. According to the applicant they agreed on the settlement and hence these issues in the aforementioned suit consequently sabotaged the interest of the applicant. Based on the joint application filed dismissing the objections to the settlement terms, this was done with malice aforethought. 

Defendant’s Contentions:

The defendant argued that the applicant filed the case even though it is unauthorized to do so. The defendants acknowledged that their culpability for the applicant’s claim had been reduced, and they would not object if the settlement included a decision granting the applicant’s request for specific performance. The present application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC was not submitted with a board resolution and was not embossed with the company’s seal; as a result, it is subject to being rejected simply on this basis. The applicant also violated the court’s order by adding construction to the disputed property and so the defendant has a right to take legal action against the applicant. 

The court made no mistake in the framing of the issues the issues were framed by the applicant who was previously the defendant’s pleadings.


The application was rejected because it had no merit. 

This was because the court believed that the legal concerns or issues raised by the Defendants’ arguments, which were requested to be deleted through the present application, were relevant for the adjudication of the current lawsuit.

Furthermore, an issue is a topic of contention between the parties in a civil lawsuit. Additionally, when parties differ on “material propositions” of truth or law, a problem arises. An issue that can limit the scope of disagreement may be presented to identify the genuine dispute and resolve it. In this instance, it was clear that the Court’s prior bench had given proper consideration to all pertinent arguments, including the compromise decree while framing the problems.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3RuuHNb

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *