Civil Revision No. 4727 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4727 of 2011 Date of Decision: 5.8.2011 Ram Pal ... Petitioner Versus The Saraswati Kunj Co-operative House Building Society Limited and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present revision petition, the impugned order dated 8.3.2011, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, has been assailed, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner/plaintiff that additional issues are required to be framed, has been declined. I have perused the impugned order dated 8.3.2011 and am of the view that the same suffers from no infirmity. To justify the impugned order, passed by the trial Court, it will be necessary to give brief facts of the case. It was pleaded in the plaint that the petitioner/plaintiff, respondent/defendant No.1 and proforma respondents were co-sharers in the suit land, details and description whereof have been given in head note of the plaint. It was further pleaded that the defendant/respondent Civil Revision No. 4727 of 2011 2 No.2, vide sale deed dated 17.2.1992 had sold his entire share in favour of defendant/respondent No.1. A plea was raised that since the respondent/defendant No.2 had sold his share in the land, vide sale deed dated 17.2.1992 and the subsequent sale deed dated 2.9.1998 is illegal, null and void ab initio. In other words, it was canvassed that because of sale deed made by respondent/defendant No.2 to the suit, nothing was left with him, therefore, subsequent sale deed dated 2.9.1998 was beyond his competence. Taking pleadings into consideration, the trial Court had formulated the following issue:- “ii) Whether the sale deed No. 7156 dated 2.9.1998 and mutation No. 6780 dated 7.1.1999 by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 are illegal, null and void ab initio as alleged? OPP”. When the trial of the suit was at the fag end, the defendants have concluded their evidence and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, the change of counsel took place. At that time, an application was filed praying that additional issues be framed. The proposed additional issues formed part of application (Annexure P1). I have perused the same. The trial Court, vide its impugned order, had rightly held that the proposed issues are covered under Issue No.2 and thus, dismissed the application. Furthermore, earlier an application for leading additional evidence was filed by the plaintiff, the same was dismissed and the revision petition filed against the same was also dismissed by this Court. What the plaintiff could not gain in an application filed for leading additional evidence, he has approached this Court through Civil Revision No. 4727 of 2011 3 another route by way of filing the instant application for framing additional issues. The trial Court was justified to decline the relief to the plaintiff taking into consideration the merits and his conduct. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 5, 2011 “DK”