Civil Revision No. 78 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 78 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.5.2009 Prem Chand ..... Petitioner vs Suresh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 10.12.2008 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner for framing of additional issue was dismissed. The proceedings arise out of a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, filed by respondents no. 1 to 5, in which subsequently the petitioner was impleaded as respondent no. 7 on his application, on the plea that the part of the suit property was in his possession. When the case was fixed for arguments, the application was filed praying to the court for framing of additional issue as to whether the disputed property marked by letter ABCD is part and parcel of plot no. 1496 ? The prayer having been declined, the order is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an additional issue is required to be framed in the present case so that the learned court can record a finding thereon otherwise the pleadings and evidence is already on record and the petitioner is only to address arguments without leading any further evidence, which will not delay the disposal of the suit. It was further submitted that in the absence of that the court may not consider this fact which may prejudice the case of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner I find his apprehension to be totally misconceived. Learned court below in concluding para of the impugned order has observed that even in the absence of specific issue the court is not precluded from recording a finding of fact on a Civil Revision No. 78 of 2009 (2) controversy provided that the parties have pleaded the case and have led their evidence and accordingly the absence of an issue is not fatal to the case. It was finally opined that there was no need to frame the issue as is sought to be framed by the petitioner. Once the stand of the petitioner is that the pleadings and evidence with regard to the issue which is sought to be framed are already on record, the apprehension of the petitioner has been taken care of by the learned court below vide impugned order which, in fact, in my opinion, does not give any reason to the petitioner to challenge the same. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. 6.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge