Civil Revision No.3320 of 2008 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.3320 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : July 20, 2009 Naresh Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS Kamal Kumar Gupta and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.N.K.Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.4.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ferozepur, whereby, an application of the plaintiff/petitioner for framing of additional issue and in the alternative for allowing him to lead additional evidence has been rejected. Heard. The petitioner challenged the sale-deed dated 10.10.1994 by seeking declaration that it is a forged document, whereas, the defendants/respondents pleaded to the contrary. Amongst the other issues, Civil Revision No.3320 of 2008 [ 2 ] a specific issue was framed, `as to whether the said sale-deed is a forged and fabricated document'. Both the parties after leading evidence on this issue, closed their evidence. The suit is pending for the last about nine years. After framing of the issues and giving adequate opportunity to lead evidence, both the parties closed their evidence and the matter is now pending for final adjudication. The plea regarding forgery and fabrication has already been raised by the petitioner in the plaint and it was open to him to lead hand- writing expert evidence to prove his claim, while leading evidence on the issues so framed. Further the plaintiff himself had closed his evidence, therefore, at this belated stage, it is not fair on his part to contend that he intends to examine hand-writing expert by way of additional evidence. The proceedings in the suit are at its fag end. The aforesaid view is strengthened by the decision of this Court in case Piara Singh and others vs. Bhupinder Kumar and another, 2001(1) Indian Civil Cases303, wherein, it was held that any objection with regard to the non-framing of issues ought to be raised at the initial stage of the suit. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned order does not warrant interference. Thus, the revision is dismissed. July 20, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE