C.R. No.8373 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8373 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.12.2010 Satnam Singh .....Petitioner Versus Harjit Singh ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Satnam Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 18.09.2010 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar thereby dismissing application dated 05.08.2010 Annexure P-3 moved by the petitioner for framing of additional issues. Petitioner's father Sohan Singh filed suit for mandatory injunction vide plaint Annexure P-1 against petitioner's brother Harjit Singh-respondent. During pendency of the suit, Sohan Singh original plaintiff died. Application for impleading his legal representatives was moved alleging that the deceased left behind three sons (including petitioner and defendant-respondent) and four daughters and also a pre-deceased daughter survived by her husband and two sons. However, the petitioner alleged that Sohan Singh original plaintiff had executed registered Will dated 02.08.2001 and thereby bequeathed the suit property and some other properties in favour of C.R. No.8373 of 2010 -2- petitioner-Satnam Singh alone. Prayer was accordingly made to implead Satnam singh only as legal representative of the original plaintiff. However, learned Trial Court vide order dated 14.10.2004 Annexure P-2 ordered that all the above mentioned natural heirs of Sohan Singh be brought on record as his legal representatives. Petitioner moved application Annexure P-3 for framing of additional issues regarding Will dated 02.08.2001 alleging that the said issues are required to be framed and adjudicated upon to decide the controversy between the parties. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that additional issues regarding Will are required to be framed and adjudicated upon. It was submitted that petitioner has already led his evidence regarding the Will set up by him and he will not lead any further evidence after framing of additional issues. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. Question of alleged Will was required to be adjudicated upon only for disposal of application moved for impleading legal representatives of the original plaintiff-Sohan Singh. However, the said application was adjudicated upon by the trial Court vide order dated 14.10.2004 Annexure P-2 and the said order has attained finality having not been challenged by either party. Consequently, after lapse of six years from the passing of order Annexure P-2, there was no occasion for the plaintiff to move C.R. No.8373 of 2010 -3- application Annexure P-3 for framing of additional issues relating to the Will. Consequently, it is manifest that the said application Annexure P-3 has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 22.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE