C.R.No.5602 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.5602 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.9.2010 Bachan Singh ...Petitioner vs Puran Singh and others ....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 9.8.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division),Batala whereby prayer of the petitioner for framing additional issue has been rejected. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 27.5.1999 executed by him in favour of defendant No.3 was illegal, unlawful, inoperative and not binding upon his rights, as the same was result of force and coercion, and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff from the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court on 1.8.2000:- 1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of land in C.R.No.5602 of 2010 2 dispute ?OPP 2.If issue No.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration for the reasons mentioned in the plaint ?OPP 3.Whether sale deed dated 27.5.1999 in favour of defendant No.3 as well as mutation No.1136 in favour of defendant No.3, is illegal, null and void, inoperative and inoperative and ineffective and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff ?OPP 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction on the strength of his possession ?OPP 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued, if so its effect ?OPD 6. Relief. A perusal of the aforesaid issues shows that issue No.3 was framed specifically on the basis of the assertions made by the plaintiff in the suit regarding the sale deed in question and the onus was rightly placed upon him to prove the same. In spite of the fact that the issues were framed, as aforesaid, in the suit on 1.8.2000 i.e. ten years back, yet admittedly the petitioner has not completed his evidence so far. When the last opportunity was granted to him to complete the evidence, the present application for framing of additional issues to the following effect was filed:- (i)Whether the plaintiff executed the sale deed dated 25.5.1999 in favour of defendant with his free will and consent ?OPD (ii) If the above issue is proved, whether the sale sale deed dated 25.5.1999 is legal, valid and for consideration ?OPD (iii) Whether mutation has been correctly sanctioned by the revenue authority, if so its effect ?OPD The aforesaid application was filed for framing additional issues on the ground that it was for the defendants to prove the plea taken by them in the written statement that the agreement to sell in question was C.R.No.5602 of 2010 3 executed by the plaintiff for a legal and valid consideration and with his free will and consent, and the onus should have been placed on the defendant-respondents. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial Court vide the impugned order observing that issue no.3 as framed on 1.8.2000, as noticed above, has already been framed and the onus was rightly placed on the plaintiff-petitioner as it is the petitioner who had come to the Court with the assertion that the agreement to sell in question is the result of force and coercion in question. I find no fault in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge September 1, 2010 rk