C.R. No. 3005 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3005 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.5.2009 Jagiri ....Petitioner Versus Hans Raj and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Vikas Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated May 4, 2009 passed by the learned Court below whereby the application under Order 14 Rule 1 CPC for framing of additional issue was rejected. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he had become owner in possession of the suit land on extinguishment of right of redemption of the mortgage. Challenge was also made to mutation No. 2025 sanctioned on April 30, 1955. At the fag end of the trial an application was moved to frame additional issue the onus of which was sought to be put on the respondents/defendants. The application having been rejected the plaintiff is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the written statement filed by the respondents/defendants a plea was sought to be raised that on payment of amount the mortgage was got redeemed by them way back on April 30, 1955. Accordingly, the issue was required to be framed to the effect as to whether the amount for redemption of mortgage was deposited and onus thereof which was to be put on the defendants as the same would clinch the issue before the Court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Admittedly the case is at the fag end and it is fixed for arguments. Further the petitioner/plaintiff had approached the court seeking a declaration that he had become owner in possession of the suit property on account of extinguishment of right of redemption of the respondents of the property which was mortgaged way back on November 30, 1948. The plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. He cannot rely upon weakness in the case set up by the defendants. More over, the learned Court below has already observed that the issue which is sought to be raised by the petitioner/plaintiff can very well be considered in the issue No.1 already framed. Once that is so, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by learned Court below in passing C.R. No. 3005 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the impugned order. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 25.5.2009 JUDGE Reema