C.R.No.500 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.500 of 2007 Date of Decision: 11.1.2008 Bharat Mittal .....Petitioner Vs. Rajesh Kumar and another ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocae for respondent no.2. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is, for setting aside the order dated 16.1.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Sr.Division), Ludhiana, declining the application filed by the petitioner-defendant no.1, praying for framing of an additional issue. Counsel for the petitioner/defendant no.1 submits that in the plaint, the respondent no.1 specifically averred that the agreement dated 1.8.1985 was followed by another agreement 25.9.1989. However, no issue has been framed with respect to the latter agreement specifically relied upon by the respondent no.1 and, therefore, the learned trial Court erred, while dismissing the application for framing of additional issues. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that as these facts are specifically pleaded in the plaint and the petitioner was aware of these pleadings, the application for framing of an additional issues at the stage of rebuttal and arguments was not maintainable. C.R.No.500 of 2007 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, as would warrant interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The additional issues prayed for by the petitioner, would in essence, be covered by issues no.2 and 3 and even otherwise, as parties have already gone to trial, being aware of the entirety of the controversy, the trial Court would obviously decide all aspects of the matter including the assertions made by the petitioner, with respect to the later agreements. Consequently, no ground exists as would necessitate the framing of additional issues at this belated stage in the suit. Dismissed with the aforementioned observations. 11.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE