C.R.No.6144 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6144 of 2002 Date of decision:09.03.2011 Bhavjinder Singh and others ..... Petitioners Versus Harjinder Singh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.Mr.Kanwal Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL) The petitioners impugns an order dated 04.12.2002, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla, holding that the petitioners/defendants no.22 to 24 have no right to cross examine the witnesses to be produced by the parties etc. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction and the trial court has framed issue no.2 relating to extent of ownership amongst the parties, the petitioners cannot be debarred from protecting their rights by cross-examining the witnesses produced by parties. It is further submitted that during pendency of the revision petition, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, has held in civil suits no.275-T,433-T, 434-T and 436-T, decided on 26.11.2009 that the petitioners are owners of 3/4th share in the property left behind by Rashpal Kaur, the trial court would necessarily be required to reconsider the impugned order. Even otherwise, as no relief is claimed against the petitioners, issue no.2 is C.R.No.6144 of 2002 -2- redundant and should be deleted. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused issue no.2 which reads as follows:- “2. Whether the defendants no.22 to 24 are owners to the extent of 3/4th share and the defendant no.1 to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land as alleged. OPP ” As is apparent from the impugned order, the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla, has recorded a finding that as no relief has been claimed against the petitioners any finding returned under issue no.2 is incidental and shall be recorded only for the purpose of deciding the rights of the plaintiff. Respondent no.1 has filed a suit praying for an injunction against defendants no.1 to 3, 13 to 21. The petitioners have admitted the claim of the plaintiff. During pendency of the revision civil suits no.275-T,433-T, 434-T and 436-T have been decided and it has been held that the petitioners are owners to the extent of 3/4th share. In view of the decision in civil suits no.275-T,433-T, 434-T and 436-T, it would be necessary for the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Malerkotla, to re-consider the petitioners prayer with respect to the necessity of framing issue no.2 and thereafter the right of the petitioners to cross examine witnesses produced by defendant no.1 to 3. In this view of the matter, the revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla, to re-consider this matter. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Civil C.R.No.6144 of 2002 -3- Judge (Senior Division), Malerkotla,on 02.05.2011. 09.03.2011 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE