C.R.No. 1460 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1460 of 2011 Date of Decision: March 03,2011 Rani Devi and another ..........Petitioners Versus Hindu United Family and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath,Advocate for Mr.Rahul Vats, Advocate for the petitioners ** Sabina, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit property was joint Hindu Family Property with consequential relief of joint possession. The trial Court framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for?OPP 2.If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged in the written statement?OPD C.R.No. 1460 of 2011 2 4.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5.Whether the proper court fee has not been affixed on the plaint?OPD 6.Whether the suit is bad for want of notice u/s 80 CPC?OPD 7.Relief.” Plaintiffs moved an application for framing of the additional issues. The trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 11.2.2011. Hence, the present petition by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the material issues had not been framed by the trial Court. The trial Court was expected to go through the pleadings of the parties and framed necessary issues accordingly. The trial Court had failed to frame the issues to the effect as to whether the suit property was Joint Hindu Family Property of the petitioners and whether Will dated 2.11.2000 had been executed by Shiv Ram in favour of the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Issues were framed on 13.3.2008. A perusal of the order whereby issues were framed, Annexure P7, reveals that no other issue had been pressed or claimed and, thereafter, the case was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiff. Now the case is listed for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. Parties know their case and have led evidence in support of their respective pleas. All the pleas taken by the plaintiffs and defendants can be decided while disposing of issue no.1. In these circumstances, the C.R.No. 1460 of 2011 3 learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the application seeking framing of additional issues. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge March 03,2011 arya