CR No. 3539 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 3539 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.5.2011. Raj Karan Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Jaswinder Kaur ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff-respondent has filed suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.3.2001. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the petitioner-defendant for framing additional issues. Vide the impugned order dated 13.5.2011, the said application was dismissed by the trial court. Hence, the present petition by defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that issues No. 'b' and 'e' as mentioned in the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure were very necessary to be framed for the just decision of the case. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. After the pleadings were complete, following issues were framed by the trial court on 21.4.2005 (as reproduced CR No. 3539 of 2011 (O&M) -2- in the grounds of petition):- “1. Whether on 19.3.2001, department agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff by executing an agreement to sell on receiving the earnest money? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff had been and is still ready and willing to perform his part of agreement? OPP 3. Whether suit is within limitation ? OPP 4. Whether plaintiff has no Locus Standi & cause of action to file the suit? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff concealed material facts from the court, if so to what effect? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped by her act & conduct from filing the suit? OPD 7. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of specific performance of agreement or for alternative relief? OPD 8. Whether plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for? OPP No other issue arises nor pressed or claim. Onus not objected.” Plaintiff concluded his evidence on 8.6.2006 and thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for evidence of the defendant. The trial court closed the evidence of the defendant vide order dated 22.7.2010. Thereafter, the defendant filed a revision petition in this court and the same was allowed. Defendant led his evidence thereafter. On 18.3.2011, an application was moved by the defendant for framing following additional issues:- “(a) Whether the suit property was valued about 20- CR No. 3539 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 25 lacs as per pleadings of preliminary objection No. 6 and it so its effect? OPD (b) Whether the agreement of sale deed 19.3.2001 is the result of fraud and the agreement in question is prepared with forgery and framed and fraud and it so it's effect? OPD (c) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (d) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD (e) Whether then the defendant is entitled to special compensatory costs under Section 35-A CPC at the time of dismissal of the suit?” OPF During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid stress only on issue Nos. 'b' and 'e'. So far as issue No. 'b' is concerned, the same would be covered under issue No.1, already framed by the trail court and so far as issue No. 'e' is concerned, the same can be considered by the trial court while deciding the relief entitled to be given to the parties. In these circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking framing of additional issues as the issues which have already been framed, would be sufficient to decide the controversy between the parties. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 26, 2011 Gurpreet