C. R. No. 4262 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4262 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 13, 2010 Kanwar Lal .... Petitioner Vs. Satbir and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Kanwar Lal – one of the legal representatives of plaintiff no.1 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, thereby disposing of application Annexure P-1 moved by the plaintiffs for amendment of issue no.1 and for framing of additional issues. Plaintiffs' case is that they inherited the suit property being nearest agnates of deceased Pat Ram. However, issue no.1 has been wrongly framed as :- “Whether the plaintiffs are Class-I C. R. No. 4262 of 2010 2 heirs of deceased Pat Ram and are entitled to the relief claimed ?” Accordingly, amendment of issue no.1 was sought to read issue no.1 as :- “Whether plaintiffs are nearest agnatic heirs of Pat Ram and are entitled to the relief claimed ?” The trial court has allowed the aforesaid amendment of issue no.1 by the impugned order. The plaintiffs also alleged in their application that according to their version, defendant no.1 was never adopted by Pat Ram deceased and the suit land was never gifted by Pat Ram in favour of defendant no.1. On the other hand, defendant no.1 has alleged that he was adopted by Pat Ram and the suit land was gifted to him. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, plaintiffs sought framing of additional issues nos.3-A and 3-B as under :- “3-A Whether Satbir – the defendant no.1 was adopted son of deceased – Pat Ram, as alleged ? OPD 3-B Whether the suit land was gifted by deceased – Pat Ram to Satbir – defendant no.1 ? OPD” Framing of additional issue no.1-A, mentioned hereunder, has C. R. No. 4262 of 2010 3 also been sought :- “1-A Whether the defendant no.1 had no saleable right in the suit land while executing impugned sale deeds in favour of defendants no.2 to 4 on 17th and 18th October 1996 ? OPP” The trial court, vide impugned order, has declined the framing of aforesaid additional issues. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that proposed additional issues arise from the pleadings of the parties and therefore, are required to be framed. The contention appears to be very attractive on first blush, but in the circumstances of the case, the contention cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that issues in the suit were framed in the year 1998 in the presence of counsel for the parties, whereas application Annexure P-1 for framing of said additional issues has been moved in March 2010 i.e. after 12 long years and there is no explanation for this long delay. It is correct that additional issues may be framed at any time before the final decision of the suit. However, in the instant case, in so far as proposed additional issue no.1-A is concerned, the same is not required to be framed, in view of other issues framed in the suit. C. R. No. 4262 of 2010 4 If questions relating to adoption, gift deed and consent decree are decided against defendant no.1, possibly he would have no saleable interest in the suit land. Conversely, if the said questions are decided in favour of defendant no.1, obviously he would have saleable interest in the suit land. Proposed issue no.1-A is thus redundant. In so far as proposed issues nos.3-A and 3-B are concerned, the trial court has observed in the impugned order that the same are covered by issue no.3, already framed, which is as under :- “Whether the decree dated 26.3.90 was null and void not admissible in evidence for the grounds stated in the plaint ? OPP” It appears that proposes issues nos.3-A and 3-B may or may not be strictly covered by issue no.3. However, since the trial court has observed that proposed issues nos.3-A and 3-B are already covered by issue no.3, it would be appropriate if the trial court also decides the questions mentioned in proposed issues nos.3-A and 3-B allegedly arising out of the pleadings of the parties, under issue no.3, as per observations of the trial court that the said questions are already covered by issue no.3. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the instant revision petition is dismissed in limine. July 13, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE