C.R. No. 4362 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4362 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.07.2010 Radha Soami Satsang Beas .....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present:- Mr. Sarjit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Satbir S. Katnoria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. C.M. Sharma, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Central Government, for the respondents. VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.5.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baba Bakala, Amritsar, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for framing additional issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stands dismissed. The plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from raising illegal construction within the notified area of 1000 yard of ammunition depot Beas, details of khasra numbers qua this relief are given in the heading of the plaint. Prayer was also made for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove illegal construction in the khasra numbers detailed in the head note of the plaint. The suit was contested by the defendant/petitioner by raising a preliminary objection, and also by denying the averments made in the C.R. No. 4362 of 2010 (O&M) -2- plaint. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues: - “1. Whether the suit has been filed by a competent and duly authorised person? OPA 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is beyond limitation? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Relief.” The petitioner thereafter moved an application for framing additional issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. The additional issues claimed read as under: - “7. Whether the description of the property given by the plaintiff is not correct, if so, its effect? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is stopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit and the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the latches and acquiescence? OPD 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act? OPD 10. Whether the suit is not maintainable and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as it effects the rights of the defendant as C.R. No. 4362 of 2010 (O&M) -3- provided under Article 25 of the Constitution of India? OPD” The learned trial Court dismissed the application moved by the petitioner, on the ground that the issues claimed by way of additional issues were covered under the issues already framed and, that the application was moved merely to delay the proceedings. Mr. Sarjit Singh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same is against the basic law, as the Court is bound to frame the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties so as to adjudicate on the facts which are in dispute. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that framing of issues helps the Court to effectively decide the controversy between the parties raised in the pleadings. The learned trial Court, therefore, committed an error in not allowing the application for additional issues, though it could not be disputed that the additional issues claimed arise from the pleadings of the parties. On asking of the Court, Mr. C.M. Sharma, Advocate, Standing Counsel, accepts notice and has supported the order passed by learned trial Court. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention here that a suit for injunction has been filed by the Union of India, restraining the petitioner from raising construction over particular khasra numbers. It is for the plaintiffs to prove their case. The objections raised by the petitioner to defeat the relief claimed by the Union of India C.R. No. 4362 of 2010 (O&M) -4- stand covered in the issues already framed, as issues No.2, 3 and 4, already framed, cover the issues now sought to be framed. On the basis of the existing issues it will be open to the petitioner to plead and prove that the suit is not maintainable under any provisions of law. Even if specific provision is not mentioned, the Court can always take note of it. Similarly, locus standi of the Union of India to file the suit is also covered. The learned Court has already framed an issue whether the Union of India is entitled to injunction prayed for, the plaintiff will have to prove the issues to succeed in the suit. The learned trial Court was, therefore, right in coming to the conclusion that the additional issues now sought to be framed, in fact, are covered by the issues already framed and the defendants/petitioner will have opportunity to lead evidence in support of the case set up in the written statement. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 16, 2010 R.S.