#framing of issues

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that Order 10 Rule 2 CPC does not empower courts to summon a company director for oral examination or production of records in the absence of framed issues. The decision underscores that oral examination cannot substitute formal discovery or evidence-taking, impacting litigants relying on procedural shortcuts in business disputes.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that mixed questions of fact and law, such as limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, cannot be resolved as preliminary issues under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC without a full trial. The court emphasized that evidence appreciation is essential for framing formal issues, impacting how lower courts handle limitation defenses in civil suits.

Punjab & Haryana High Court rules that amended pleadings raising new legal challenges-such as the illegality of an ex-parte mutation order-cannot be addressed through general declarations. Courts must frame specific issues under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC to ensure procedural fairness and avoid prejudice to the opposing party.

Allahabad High Court holds that amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is permissible after framing of issues but before evidence begins, rejecting mechanical denial on grounds of delay.