IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 621 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: January 28, 2011 Gurdip Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Vivek Aggarwal .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.P. Vashist, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 17.12.2010 (Annexure P5) passed by the trial court. The plaintiff- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') is stated to have filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- on the basis of the cheques which were credited in the account of the respondent as issued by his father namely Jarnail Singh. The petitioner being the beneficiary under the Will from Jarnail Singh as well as his legal heir, filed a suit which was contested by the defendants. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation?OPD 3. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable?OPD 4. Relief. Learned counsel has stated that no such issue with regard to validity of the Will has been framed by the trial court, therefore, no amount of evidence could be led in that regard. Even otherwise, the question of Will may be between him and the other legal heirs of Jarnail Singh, but he being one of the legal heir of Jarnail Singh was fully competent to file the Civil Revision No. 621 of 2011 (O&M) -2- *** suit. The affidavit and the Will as mentioned in the order had nothing to do with the suit for recovery. There is no issue with regard to the Will. Even the order passed by the trial court is not clear and is confusing one. The court in the first part of the order has recorded that since the copy of the Will has been produced, therefore, the application to produce the original Will stands disposed of, but in the second part of the order, the court allowed the comparison of the signatures of Jarnail Singh with his standard signatures. It is also well settled that the parties could lead evidence only qua the issues framed by the Court. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondent with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondent as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondent may move to this court for recalling this order. January 28, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge