Skip to content

ADVOCATETANMOY LAW LIBRARY

Research & Library Database

Primary Menu
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Countries198
    • National Constitutions: History, Purpose, and Key Aspects
  • Judgment
  • Book
  • Legal Brief
    • Legal Eagal
  • LearnToday
  • HLJ
    • Supreme Court Case Notes
    • Daily Digest
  • Sarvarthapedia
    • Sarvarthapedia (Core Areas)
    • Systemic-and-systematic
    • Volume One
05/04/2026
  • Law

Framing of issues under CPC-Specimen

That onus to prove that, the plaintiff ’s suit is bad due to nonjoinder of necessary party or misjoinder of parties, was upon the defendants which they failed to discharge, hence it can be said that the suit is not bad due to non-joinder of necessary party or due misjoinder of parties. Hence issue Nos. 8 and 9 stands decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. 
advtanmoy 14/04/2021 4 minutes read

© Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
Code of Civil Procedure

Home » Law Library Updates » Sarvarthapedia » Law » Framing of issues under CPC-Specimen

Original Suit Number: 208/1984

Amar Nath and Others Vs. Vishwanath and Others

(Presiding Officer- Ashutosh Tiwari , Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service)

Read Next

  •  Judicial office is essentially a public trust: Supreme Court
  • Disclosure of Personal Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest (26th Jan 2026)

J.O. Code: UP2199

After oral examinations of the parties U/O-10 R-2 of CPC and on the basis of the averments of parties in their pleadings this court framed following issues:

i. Whether plaintiffs are owner and in the possession of the suit property?
ii. Whether suit has been undervalued?
iii. Whether court fees paid is insufficient?
iv. Whether plaintiff ’s suit is barred by estoppel and acquiescence?
v. Whether plaintiff ’s suit is barred by Sections 34, 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963?
vi. Whether plaintiff ’s suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation Of Holdings, Act, 1953 Act?
vii. Whether plaintiff is barred under Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC?
viii. Whether plaintiff ’s suit is bad due to non-joinder of necessary party?
ix. Whether plaintiff ’s suit is bad due to misjoinder of the parties?
x. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle to the relief as claimed by them?


Development (steps)

Read Next

  •  Judicial office is essentially a public trust: Supreme Court
  • Disclosure of Personal Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest (26th Jan 2026)

Issue Nos. 2 and 3 have been treated as preliminary issue and the same has been disposed off by the Predecessor Court
negatively in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, hence now this court is concerned only with the undisposed issues.


Both plaintiffs and the defendants have filed various documentary evidences and have got several persons to be examined on their account. Due to non-appearance this court closed opportunity of all defendants except of defendant no:9 vide its order dated 12/02/2020. After conclusion of the trial, plaintiffs and defendant no:9 submitted their final arguments.


Heard the arguments of learned counsels of the plaintiffs and defendant no:9 submitted and perused relevant materials placed on record.

Read Next

  •  Judicial office is essentially a public trust: Supreme Court
  • Disclosure of Personal Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest (26th Jan 2026)


It is well settled legal position of general burden of proof provided under section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that one, who has brought his lis before the court of justice, the primary burden of proof lies upon him. Said burden of proof is permanent and never shifting in nature. The plaintiff must first prove his cause of action and it is only then the onus shifts upon the defendant. In civil cases the standard of proof is preponderance of probability. Thus all that the court is required to test the evidences of both the parties on the touchstone of probability of truthfulness in particular version.


Testing the plaintiff’s evidences on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, it can be said that plaintiffs have
miserably failed to discharge their primary burden of proof. This court finds present suit as total sham litigation.


After above said analysis of the evidences and arguments advanced by counsels of the parties, this court is inclined to record
its finding on remainder issues as follows:

i. That plaintiffs are neither the owner nor entitle to the possession of the suit property. Hence issue no:1 is decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.

ii. That since onus to prove that the plaintiff suit is barred by estopple and acquiescence was upon the defendants which they
failed to discharge, hence it can be said that the plaintiff ’s suit is not barred by estopple and acquiescence, hence issue No. 4 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

iii. That onus to prove that, the plaintiff ’s suit is bad due to nonjoinder of necessary party or misjoinder of parties, was upon
the defendants which they failed to discharge, hence it can be said that the suit is not bad due to non-joinder of necessary party or due misjoinder of parties. Hence issue Nos. 8 and 9 stands decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

iv. That, since the plaintiffs have failed to establish their cause of action, hence it can be said that plaintiffs are not entitled to
any relief from this court.


Plaintiffs suit is hereby dismissed for want merit. No order as to cost. Case file be consigned to the record room as per law.


Today this judgement was pronounced by me in the open court and the same bears my signature.


Go for connected legal points:

Framing of issues under CPC

Tags: Issue SpecimenCivil

Post navigation

Previous: Article III of U.S. Constitution-Judicial Department
Next: Indian Standards are now available Free of Cost
Communism
Sarvarthapedia

Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848: History, Context, and Core Concepts

Arrest
Sarvarthapedia

Latin Maxims in Criminal Law: Meaning, Usage, and Courtroom Application

Biblical Basis for Slavery: Old and New Testament Laws, Narratives, and Interpretations

Rule of Law vs Rule by Law and Rule for Law: History, Meaning, and Global Evolution

IPS Cadre Strength 2025: State-wise Authorised Strength

Uric Acid: From 18th Century Discovery to Modern Medical Science

Christian Approaches to Interfaith Dialogue: Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal Views

Origin of Central Banking in India: From Hastings to RBI and the History of Preparatory Years (1773–1934)

Howrah District Environment Plan: Waste Management, Water Quality & Wetland Conservation

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023: Sections (1-358), Punishments, and Legal Framework

Bengali Food Culture: History, Traditions, and Class Influences

West Bengal Court-Fees Act, 1970: Fees, Schedules, and Procedures

WB Land Reforms Tribunal Act 1997: History, Features, Provisions, Structure, Powers and Functions

Civil Procedure Law of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (1976)

  • Sarvarthapedia

  • Delhi Law Digest

  • Howrah Law Journal

  • Amit Arya vs Kamlesh Kumari: Doctrine of merger
  • David Vs. Kuruppampady: SLP against rejecting review by HC (2020)
  • Nazim & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1184)
  • Geeta v. Ajay: Expense for daughter`s marriage allowed in favour of the wife
  • Ram v. Sukhram: Tribal women’s right in ancestral property [2025] 8 SCR 272
  • Naresh vs Aarti: Cheque Bouncing Complaint Filed by POA (02/01/2025)
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS)
  • Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (BSA): Indian Rules for Evidence
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023
  • The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
  • Supreme Court Daily Digest
  • U.S. Supreme Court Orders
  • U.k. Supreme Court Orders
Biblical Basis for Slavery

Biblical Basis for Slavery: Old and New Testament Laws, Narratives, and Interpretations

Sarvarthapedia, Law and Legal Materials

Rule of Law vs Rule by Law and Rule for Law: History, Meaning, and Global Evolution

Indian Government

IPS Cadre Strength 2025: State-wise Authorised Strength

Sarvarthapedia

Uric Acid: From 18th Century Discovery to Modern Medical Science

2026 © Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • About
  • Global Index
  • Judicial Examinations
  • Indian Statutes
  • Glossary
  • Legal Eagle
  • Subject Guide
  • Journal
  • SCCN
  • Constitutions
  • Legal Brief (SC)
  • MCQs (Indian Laws)
  • Sarvarthapedia (Articles)
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs
  • Library Updates