M.M. Kumar, J.
1. This petition is directed against the Order dated 12.9.2005 (P-5), passed by the trial Court by accepting an application filed by the plaintiff-respondent under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. for recasting of issues framed on 20.1.2005. The application was contested and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the trial Court has framed an additional issue renumbering the issue as No. 5 and the issue with regard to relief has been renamed as Issue No. 6. The issue framed is as under:-
5. Whether the defendant has rendered the accounts? OPD
2. In the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent it was highlighted that the defendant-petitioner had contested the suit by taking five preliminary objections. The preliminary objection No. 5 was as under:-
That defendant has already rendered all the true and correct accounts of the whole of the amount handled by him during his employment with the plaintiff, but the same has not been properly accounted for by the functionaries. All the bills and receipts for the money handled by the defendant in his capacity as director Balbir Hospital and Research Center and all the documentary proof thereto have already been submitted to the administration. All the medicines and all other items purchased for the hospital were properly taken on ledger charge and were utilized only for the authorized purpose. However, the defendant had refused to oblige some of the functionaries illegally due to which the defendant was harassed mentally and his salary was illegally with held without any reason, even up to 8 months....
3. In para 7 of the written statement again the defendant-petitioner has asserted that he has rendered all the accounts in respect of money advanced to him from time to time. Para 7 of the written statement reads as under:-
7. Para No. 7 of the plaint is wrong. The bills/receipts of all the amount given to the defendant as temporary and permanent advances were duly rendered by him to the accounts branch from time to time. The medicines/articles purchased out of the said amount of temporary and permanent advance were taken of on proper ledger charge and were utilized from the authorised purpose only. This act of the defendant was not to the likening of the said functionaries. No amount is outstanding against the defendant. The account books were not maintained properly and but were treated in a causal way according to the directions of the said functionaries. It is totally wrong that the defendant failed to render any account. In fact he had cleared each and every thing before leaving the service on 4.3.2000 and no such demand was made on him by the plaintiff trust because the defendant had rendered all the true and correct account before leaving his service with the plaintiff trust. The account books of the plaintiff trust were in the control of the said functionaries and were not accessible to the defendant. In such an event if the entries have not been made in the account books regarding the accounts rendered by the defendant, then it clearly proves the mala fide and dishonest intention on the part of the said functionaries and is not a fault on the part of the defendant.
4. A perusal of the averments made in paras 5 and 7 of the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner shows that he has categorically taken the stand of having rendered true and correct accounts of the whole amount handled by him during his employment with the plaintiff-respondent. It has further been asserted that all the bills and receipts of the money handled by him in his capacity as Director of the respondent-hospital along with all the documentary proof thereto have been submitted to the administration. Accordingly, the issue has been framed as to whether the defendant-petitioner has rendered the account by placing the onus on him.
5. Having heard learned Counsel, I am of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity in the view taken by the trial Court in framing an additional issue on the application filed by the plaintiff- respondent. It is well settled that a fact is required to be proved by that person who desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability-dependent on the existence of facts which he has asserted. Accordingly, it has to be held that under Chapter 7 concerning the Burden of Proof, from Section 101 to 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof lies on the defendant-petitioner as, has been rightly held by the trial Court. Even otherwise, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 are required to be exercised only in a case of grave injustice. There is no such case of grave injustice made out for exercise of the aforementioned jurisdiction.