THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.3904 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 09-08-2010, passed in I.A.No.820 of 2004 in O.S.No.6 of 2002 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri. The petitioner herein is the 3rd defendant in the suit in O.S.No.6 of 2002 filed by respondents 1 to 4 herein seeking specific performance of agreement of sale executed by the father of the petitioner. The said suit was filed against the father of the petitioner and after his death, the petitioner herein was impleaded as legal heir. It is stated that the petitioner’s father filed written statement denying the execution of agreement of sale, dated 25-04-1985, contending that the agreement of sale is a forged one. After the death of his father, the petitioner also adopted the said written statement stating that the agreement of sale is a forged one. It is the case of the petitioner that as a specific plea has been taken by his father in the written statement that the agreement of sale is a forged one, the entire burden is shifted on him to elevate the specific plea of forgery and, therefore, an additional issue “whether the suit contract of sale, dated 25-04-1985 is forged one” requires to be framed under Order XIV Rule 1 (3) of CPC. The court below vide its order, dated 09-08-2010, dismissed the said application on the ground that first issue i.e., “whether the contract of sale, dated 25-04-1985 is true, valid and binding upon the defendants”, which was framed in the suit, covers the issue, which is intended to be framed by the petitioner. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to frame the said additional issue and the same is not opposed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the court below ought to have framed the additional issue as to “whether the suit contract of sale, dated 25-04-1985 is forged one” instead of dismissing the said application. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 27-08-2011 Prv