C.R.No.7306 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.7306 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on 25.11.2010. Gurdeep Singh --Petitioner vs. Jasvir Kaur and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.ADS Sukhija,Advocate,for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J,(Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.10.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kapurthala, by which application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short 'CPC') for framing additional issue has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 27.5.2003 in respect of the house for a C.R.No.7306 of 2010 (O&M) 2 consideration of Rs. 9 lacs ,out of which Rs. 7 lacs was allegedly paid as earnest money. It is further alleged that defendant No.3 had sold the property in dispute vide sale deed dated 12.5.2004 to defendant No.2 without consideration which was null and void. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order of the Court on 28.7.2009. He came to the High Court assailing the said order in which vide order dated 1.9.2009, he was given one more opportunity to conclude his evidence. Thereafter, he examined two witnesses on 21.10.2009 and closed his evidence. After closure of his evidence, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing additional issues which are reproduced as under :- a. Whether deceased Resham Singh executed any valid and legal power of attorney dated 28.4.2004 in favour of defendant No.3 ? b. Whether the power of attorney dated 28.4.2004 alleged to be executed by deceased Resham Singh in favour of defendant No.3 is a forged and fabricated document ? c. Whether sale deed dated 12.5.2004 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.2. is null and void and without consideration ? The trial Court, however, dismissed the said application by way of impugned order on the ground that the application is not filed with a bonafide intention because if the application is allowed, the plaintiff shall have to be given another opportunity to lead evidence, whereas the evidence was already closed by order of the Court against which a revision was filed by the plaintiff before the High Court in which one more opportunity was granted to him to lead his entire evidence subject to payment of Rs. 5000/- as costs. C.R.No.7306 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the evidence has been closed by order of the Court, the additional issue can be allowed to be framed on the pleadings of the parties and he may be granted one more opportunity to lead his evidence as the evidence of the defendant is yet to start. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record from which I have found that the plaintiff has not sought any declaration with regard to setting aside of the sale deed dated 12.5.2004. Moreover, his evidence was closed by order of the Court dated 28.7.2009. The said order was challenged by him by way of a revision before this Court in which he was given one more opportunity to lead his entire evidence on payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. The petitioner had availed that opportunity and examined two witnesses. Now after the closure of his evidence, it appears that the plaintiff is trying to reopen his evidence through this application, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to circumvent the order of this Court dated 1.9.2009 which was passed in his favour by granting him one more opportunity to lead his entire evidence on payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. 25.11.2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge