C.R. No. 1492 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1492 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 3, 2011 Surmukh Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Smt.Surinder Sharma and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Through the present revision petition the validity of the order dated June 9, 2010 has been questioned under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide the said order, the application filed by the plaintiff- appellant for framing of additional issues stand dismissed. Counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner submits that the issues which are sought to be added have been mentioned in para 2 of the impugned order. C.R. No. 1492 of 2011 (O&M) [2] After hearing counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner and going through the amended plaint annexure P-4 and the written statement annexure P-2, I am of the opinion that the parties are not on issue regarding the question which is sought to be framed by way of amendment. A perusal of Order 14 Rule 1 CPC indicates that only those issues can be framed when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by a party and denied by the other. The factum of execution of sale deed regarding 64 kanals 13 marlas on February 26, 2002 out of 91 kanals 8 marlas on the basis of a previous agreement of sale stands admitted by the contesting defendant in his written statement in para 1 (D), (E) and (F). In the present case, the plaintiff seeks to add issue Nos. 1A and 1B claiming onus of the same to be put on plaintiff regarding a fact which stands admitted by the predecessor in interest of the defendant- Joginder Singh. No ground is made out for interfering in the order dated January 7, 2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar, dismissing the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing additional issues. While in the same revision petition, the validity of order annexure P-10 dated February 8, 2011 has been challenged dismissing the application for adjourning the case for evidence of the plaintiff on the ground that the Court has framed additional issues on the basis of the pleadings of defendant Nos. 2 to 5, the subsequent purchasers of the property in dispute, in a suit for possession by way of specific performance. C.R. No. 1492 of 2011 (O&M) [3] On asking of the Court, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the additional issue No.3A which as framed at the request of defendants No.2 to 5 reads as follows:- “3A. Whether the respondents are bonafide purchaser of the suit property and protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act? OPD” This revision petition has been preferred by plaintiff seeking an opportunity to produce the evidence on the abovesaid added issue No.3A. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court having permitted the amendment of the pleadings and allowed the framing of additional issue No.3A, the plaintiff- petitioner will have a right to lead evidence on issue No.3A regarding added respondent not being bonafide purchaser. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I am of the pinion that the issue which has been framed on the basis of the amended pleadings has to be proved by the added respondents who claim themselves to be the bonafide purchaser. When the onus of issue lies upon defendants, the plaintiff has got a legal right to produce rebuttal evidence on the said issue. The application of the plaintiff for adjournment to produce evidence on issue No.3A seems to have been rightly dismissed by the trial Court as the counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that the case is at the stage of production of evidence on behalf of the defendants. No ground is made out for interference in the order annexure P-10 dated February 8, 2011. C.R. No. 1492 of 2011 (O&M) [4] Dismissed. However, it is observed that the dismissal of the application for adjournment and the present revision petition will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the plaintiff- petitioner to produce rebuttal evidence on issue No.3A. It is further observed that the grant of adjournment is the discretion of a Court under Section 151 CPC and any order passed by the Courts declining to adjourn the case is not challengeable in revision petition. March 3, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE