C.R. No. 3340 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3340 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 26, 2011 Surjit Singh and another …..Petitioners Vs. Karam Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Ashish Grover, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff- petitioners have filed an application for framing additional issue claiming that the additional issue arises out of the pleadings of the parties. Plaintiffs claimed that they have taken a specific plea in the replication that the suit land had been purchased with the funds of the joint Hindu family property as the ancestral land was acquired by Union of India and the suit property purchased by defendant- respondents No.1 with the funds of the compensation received from Union of India of the ancestral C.R. No. 3340 of 2011 [2] acquired land and the fund contributed by the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. It is claimed that no issue has been framed by the trial Court as such the issue “Whether the suit property was purchased by funds received from the ancestral acquired property of the plaintiffs? OPP. The trial Court has dismissed the application holding that the additional issue which is sought to be framed falls within the comprehensive issue already framed which is as follows:- “Whether the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3 are owners in possession of their respective houses as per the agreement dated January 12, 1991?” On asking of the Court, counsel for the plaintiff- petitioners had made available a copy of the agreement dated January 12, 1991 which is stated to be part of the record as Ex.P29. A perusal of the said document indicates that the compensation on account of acquisition on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants was received by Karam Singh and his four sons in equal shares after deducting the expenses. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case is now fixed for the evidence of the defendant- respondents and the plaintiffs do not want to produce any additional evidence on the issue which is sought to be framed but he merely wishes to place on record the revenue record. After considering the facts and circumstances of this case and going through the order passed by the trial Court, I do not find any infirmity in observations made by the trial Court that the issue which is sought to be framed is already covered by the comprehensive issue No.1 already framed. C.R. No. 3340 of 2011 [3] So far as the desire of the petitioners to place on record revenue record is concerned, it will always be open to the petitioners to tender the said revenue record with permission of the Court in accordance with law at an opportune time. No ground is made out for interference. Disposed of. May 26, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE