IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2748/2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 15.5.2009. Satish Kumar Dhawan and another ..........Petitioners. Versus Sh.Mahesh Mehra ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. GS Nagra,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). Petitioners-plaintiffs have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 28.4.2009 (Annexure P6) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar, whereby their application for framing an additional issue was dismissed. Petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and electricity charges in respect of first floor of H.No.727/6, Housing Board Colony, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar City for the period from 12.6.2000 to 11.3.2001 amounting to Rs.32,239/-, detail of which was given in the head note of the plaint. The said suit was filed on 3.4.2001. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed on 9.12.2004. The parties had led their evidence and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence,if any and arguments when the petitioners-plaintiffs moved the present application dated 25.3.2009(Annexure P/4). CR NO.2748/2009(O&M) 2 In the suit for recovery of rent, as noticed above, filed by the petitioners it was their case that respondent-tenant was occupying the first floor of the house for the last 4-5 years at a monthly rent of Rs.2650/- plus house tax and electrical charges. It was further alleged that respondent shifted to his own house by taking his house hold articles from the demised premises on 25.10.2000 and also locked the demised premises without handing over the possession to the petitioners-landlords. In his written statement respondent had taken the stand that the suit was not maintainable as nothing was outstanding nor he was in arrears of rent, as alleged. It was also his stand that he had paid the rent against receipts issued by Gita Rani-plaintiff no.2. During his evidence defendant-respondent produced one receipt Ex.D1 allegedly issued by said Gita Rani. In the application for framing additional issue it was stated by the petitioners that on the date of framing of the issues the receipt Ex.D-1 was not on record and as such no issue in that regard could be framed. It was prayed that in view of production of receipt Ex.D1, an additional issue to the following effect be framed:- “Whether no amount is due to the plaintiff in view of the receipt issued by Gita Rani?OPD. Upon notice of the application, defendant-respondent contested the same. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides dismissed the application for framing additional issue. Hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. CR NO.2748/2009(O&M) 3 The learned trial Court, in its impugned order has noticed that one of the issues framed was that whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover the rent as claimed by them. The onus to discharge the burden of proof was upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiff having discharged that burden it shifted upon the defendant to prove that he had discharged his liability due towards him. It is in this process that he had produced the receipt Ex.D1. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were not granted opportunity to cross examine the DWs or the document Ex.D1 was not present at the time of cross examination of the DWs. Moreover one of the issues i.e. issue no.1 framed by the learned trial Court and noticed by it in the impugned order,as discussed above, in my considered opinion, has rightly been held to be a comprehensive one and there was no need to frame an additional issue due to production of receipt Ex.D1. No merit. Dismissed in limine. 15.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge