IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6415 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 04, 2010 Satinder Kaur. …Petitioner Versus Joginder Kaur and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.09.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dasuya, whereby the application moved by the plaintiff- petitioner to frame additional issue was dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner made statement before this Court that no evidence is required on the additional issue proposed by the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, further stated that lis between the parties can be decided without any further evidence on the proposed evidence. C.R. No. 6415 of 2010 Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Nedunuri Kameswaramma vs. Sampati Subba Rao , reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 884 , has held as under:- “ Where the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or that there was that mis-trial which vitiates proceedings. The suit could not be dismissed on this narrow ground, and also there is no need for a remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case is sufficient to reach the right conclusion and neither party claimed that it had any further evidence to offer.” Now, this is no more res integra that lis between the parties can be decided by the Court even without framing the issue if parties knowing well controversy between them have led evidence in support of their pleadings. Learned Trial Court in the impugned order has observed that proposed issue is covered under issue Nos. 1,2 and 6 already framed. Learned counsel has stated that no further evidence is required on the proposed issue. If that is so, there is no need to frame additional issue. Present petition is dismissed. October 4, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2