CR No.5341 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5341 of 2010 Decided on : 24.08.2010 Raj Kumar ... Petitioner versus Om Parkash & others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present : Mr. Parveen Chauhan , Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 15.05.2010 whereby his application for framing of additional issues has been rejected. As per the averments made in the petition, the plaintiff- petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming title to the suit property on the basis of a Will dated 20.03.2004 executed by the deceased – Thau Ram and challenging the mutation No.7758 sanctioned in favour of the defendants-respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the following issues were necessary to be framed for reaching to a just and correct decision of the suit: (i)Whether Will dated 20.03.2004 was executed by deceased Thau Ram in favour of plaintiff? OPP (ii)Whether mutation No.7758 is wrong, illegal, null and void and revenue entries on the basis of mutation in subsequent jamabandi are wrong, illegal and are liable CR No.5341 of 2010 -2- to be corrected? OPD (iii)Whether plaintiff is entitled for injunction? OPP Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the trial court has failed to frame the correct issues and even his application for framing the aforesaid issues has been wrongly rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the very basis of the suit filed by the petitioner is the Will dated 20.03.2004 executed by the deceased – Thau Ram in his favour and he was very well acquainted about the facts of his case from the beginning and filed the present suit for declaration on the basis of the aforesaid Will. It may be seen that the suit pertains to the year 2007 and the trial court is at the fag end as both the parties have already led evidence in the suit. The trial court has also noticed a fact that there is an issue i.e. issue No.1, which is to the following effect: “Whether the plaintiff-petitioner is owner in possession of the suit land” and this issue covers the issues as claimed by the petitioner and the petitioner has also led evidence to prove the Will Dated 20.03.2004.” In this view of the matter, I find no error in the impugned order dated 15.05.2010. Dismissed. August 24, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) sonia JUDGE