Civil Revision No.4399 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4399 of 2011 Date of Decision:-22.7.2011 Arjan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Kashmir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Concisely, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Kashmir Singh son of Mohan Singh respondent No.1-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”), filed the suit seeking a decree for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.1.2004, executed by the defendants in his favour, with respect to the land in dispute, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Arjan Singh petitioner-defendant No.1 and his brothers Harbhajan Singh and Bakhshish Singh proforma-respondent-defendant Nos.2 and 3 (for short “the defendants”) from alienating the suit land, in any manner during the pendency of the suit. 2. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues, vide order dated 23.8.2006 (Annexure P4):- 1. Whether defendants executed an agreement to sell dated 16.1.2004 in favour of the plaintiff?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract/OPP 3. If issues no.1 and 2 are proved, whether plaintiff is entitled for possession Civil Revision No.4399 of 2011 -2- by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.1.2004?OPP 4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 5. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPP 6. Whether suit of plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties?OPP 7. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction?OPP 8. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 9. Relief. 3. During the course of final stage of the suit, the petitioner-defendant No.1 moved an application (Annexure P5) for framing of additional issue. The application was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 11.5.2011 (Annexure P1). 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the petitioner-defendant No.1 preferred the instant revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition. 6. As is evident from the record that after completion of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the issues on 23.8.2006 (Annexure P4). The evidence of the defendants has already been closed by the Court on 7.3.2011. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1, by way of impugned order dated 11.5.2011 (Annexure P1), which, in substance, is as under:- “File perused. Perusal of the file shows that in the present case, issues were framed on 23.8.2006 and evidence of the defendant has already been closed by order on 7.3.2011. Further the evidence led by defendants shows that he has already led the evidence qua the issues sought to be framed by him. So, if from the evidence, it prima facie comes on record that the alleged agreement is a result of fraud and misrepresentation, the suit will itself not maintainable and issue qua the maintainability has already Civil Revision No.4399 of 2011 -3- been framed as issue no.5 and the onus of the same has already been on the defendant. So under these circumstances, the issues sought to be framed by defendant is itself imbibed in issue no.5. The filing of the application at the fag end of the case seems that it has been filed just to delay the case. So, no ground is made out to frame the additional issue and the present application is hereby declined.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any specific instance/incidents of fraud in the pleadings/written statement, which could necessitate the trial Court to frame the additional issue of fraud etc. in this respect. Whether the agreement dated 16.1.2004 is the contract of sale (as claimed by the plaintiff) or is a document of loan, as urged on behalf of the defendants, would be a moot point, to be decided by the trial court during the course of trial. Plaintiff will only succeed in the suit for specific performance, if he proves by cogent evidence that in fact the aforesaid agreement is a contract of sale and not otherwise. Moreover, in the absence of any specific pleadings in regard to the instances and incidents of fraud and misrepresentation, no issue can be framed in this relevant connection. To me, the real controversy between the parties can effectively be resolved under the indicated issues already framed by the trial Court. 8. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons in dismissing the application (Annexure P4) filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 by passing the impugned order (Annexure P1). Such impugned order cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of extraordinary limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so as to take a contrary view by this Court, than that of the well reasoned decision already arrived at by the trial Court. 9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further Civil Revision No.4399 of 2011 -4- anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the trial, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. However, it is made clear that nothing observed here-in-above would, in any manner, reflect on the merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 22.7.2011 Judge AS