Civil Revision No. 6004 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6004 of 2011 Date of decision. 29.09.2011 Kulwant Kaur and others .... Petitioners Versus Avtar Singh and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This revision petition is brought by the plaintiffs Kulwant Kaur and others under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.08.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kapurthala, whereby their application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with section 151 CPC has been partly allowed. Kulwant Kaur, Swaran Kaur and Balbir Kaur have claimed themselves to be daughters of Kartar Singh, who had been the brother of Sant Singh. It is the claim that Sant Singh and Kartar Singh inherited the property of one Binda Singh and being daughters of Kartar Singh, the plaintiffs have a claim for 3/10 share in the said property. The petitioners filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with section 151 CPC claiming that no issue with regard to the relationship of the plaintiffs/petitioners with Kartar Singh, deceased has Civil Revision No. 6004 of 2011 --2-- been framed. According to them, it was a necessary issue in the absence of which the plaintiffs could not lead evidence to the fact that they are daughters of Kartar Singh. Prayer was made for framing of an issue to this effect as also to the effect that defendant no.10 is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration without notice. Taking reply to the said application from defendant no.10, wherein it was pleaded that it was not maintainable and the plaintiffs intended to fill up lacuna by making this application, learned trial court had heard learned counsel for the parties and has partly allowed the same, vide the impugned order. Learned trial court has ordered framing of issue no.6-A regarding the plea that defendant no.10 is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration without any notice of relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased Kartar Singh. However, the other issue was not framed and application for framing of that issue has been dismissed on the ground that the said aspect is covered under issue no.1, already framed on 04.06.2009. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiffs have brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Padam Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the claim of the plaintiffs to 3/10 share in the property left by Binda Singh is based on the relationship with Kartar Singh, deceased. According to him, in the absence of an issue to that effect, the plaintiffs could not lead any Civil Revision No. 6004 of 2011 --3-- evidence of this relationship. According to him, the trial court has refused to frame this issue only on the ground that this aspect stands already covered by issue no.1. He has submitted that in the absence of a specific issue, no evidence could be led to prove this aspect of the case. He has, therefore, prayed for allowing the revision petition and framing of an additional issue covering the aforesaid relationship of the plaintiffs with Kartar Singh. The first issue framed on 04.06.2009 requires the plaintiffs to prove that they are entitled to the declaration as prayed for. Though it is not a specific issue, yet the case of the petitioners is not very complicated and is based solely on the relationship of the plaintiffs with Kartar Singh. The claim of the plaintiffs for declaration would succeed only if they prove this relationship and would fail if they fail in proving the same. There is nothing to have misled the plaintiffs into the belief that under the existing issues, they were not to prove their relationship with Kartar Singh. The plaintiffs-petitioners appear, in the present circumstances, to be intending to lead evidence on the question of relationship without naming it as additional evidence. They seem to have not been satisfied with the evidence already led on issue no.1 and under the garb of a specific issue, they want to lead that evidence again. Though under Order 14 Rule 1 sub-rule (iii) each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall form the subject of a distinct issue, yet the case of the plaintiffs being simple, Civil Revision No. 6004 of 2011 --4-- based on relationship for a share in the property, issue no.1 already framed on 4.6.2009 would be sufficient to cover this aspect and learned trial court has been fully justified in declining to frame an issue on this aspect. The revision petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 29.09.2011 dinesh