Civil Revision No.2515 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.2515 of 2009 Decided on : May 04, 2009 Binder Kaur and another ... Petitioners VERSUS Surjit Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Lakhwinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The order dated 16.4.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ludhiana has been challenged by way of this petition, vide which, the Trial Court has dismissed the application of the plaintiffs – petitioners (herein referred as the petitioners) for framing of an additional issue. Heard. The defendant No.1 has set up his claim on the basis of a Will dated 20.5.1991, allegedly executed by Bachan Singh in his favour. However, it is alleged by the petitioner that no such Will was ever Civil Revision No.2515 of 2009 [ 2 ] executed by Bachan Singh and the same is a forged document. Though, the Trial Court ought to have framed a specific issue, yet it framed a general issue, which reads as under:- “Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?” The application was declined by the Trial Court with the observations that the evidence had already been led by the parties and it is the turn of the petitioners to lead evidence in rebuttal. The Trial Court further observed that since both the parties being well aware of the controversy, have already led the evidence, therefore, the issue of the genuineness of the Will shall be decided, without framing any additional issue. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that since both the parties are at variance with regard to the execution of the alleged Will, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Trial Court to frame an additional issue. I find myself in agreement with this contention, but as the parties knowing fully well about the issue into controversy, led evidence accordingly and also the fact that the Trial Court has specifically observed in the impugned order that it would consider the evidence on the validity of the Will dated 20.5.1991, even though, no issue has been framed in this regard, therefore, it would not be essential to frame an additional issue. However, the appellants would be at liberty to lead Civil Revision No.2515 of 2009 [ 3 ] any sort of evidence to rebut the aforesaid Will in rebuttal and the Trial Court while deciding issue No.1 (aforequoted) will also decide the controversy with regard to the execution of the Will by Bachan Singh. With the above observations, the revision is dismissed. May 04, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE