1. ' MANSOOR AKHAR KOKAB, J.--- Present revision is against the order dated 10-10-2009 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application under Order XIV, rule 5, C.P.C. Of the present petitioner whereby he agitated that the issues were not framed in the suit filed by the respondent.
2. ' Learned counsel for the respondent entered his appearance and submitted power of attorney by accepting the notice and contends that the issues were framed on 4-4-2008 whereafter evidence of the plaintiff was recorded while the defendant's evidence was closed and the arguments were heard when the present application was made for review of reframing of issues. He contends that the present petitioner under the cloak of this application for review in fact wanted to reopen the whole case whereas the objection with regard to maintainability and that of mode of payment of certain amount of cheque had already been made subject to decision through specified issues.
3. ' The order of the learned Civil Judge dated 10-10-2009 is gone through in the light of above assertions made by both of the parties and the issues framed, the copy of which is annexed to the present revision petition. The ground about maintainability, if raised as purely touching the question of law and have nothing to do vis-a-vis about question of facts, then the legal ground can be raised by the defendant at the time of arguments even without framing of issue. With regard to payment of certain cheque, the lower Court has rightly observed concerning framing of issue as the more comprehensive issue with regard to entitlement of the plaintiff to receive the claimed amount i,e, Rs,64,48,279 had been framed and the mode with regard to payment, in fact attacks the entitlement of the plaintiff to receive the said amount. As the issue pertaining to entitlement is crystal clear, therefore, it remains only question of fact to prove that entitlement or disentitlement by proving certain mode of payment. With regard to that no specific issue was necessary to be framed at. Further as the case is on final leg for disposal, therefore, there is no need to reopen the whole of the case by framing of the fresh issues and in fact to provide the petitioner with the chance to adduce the evidence pertaining to which the right was closed by the Court through an order which was never assailed and had attained finality. The revision petition is dismissed.