Civil Revision No. 6275 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6275 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.04.2009. Smt. Brij Mohini and others Petitioners Versus Inderdeep Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The defendants-petitioners have a grievance that their request for framing of two issues was declined. Insofar as the framing of issue with regard to readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs-respondents to perform the contract is concerned, it is common ground that issue has since been framed following an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a revision petition. The controversy is, thus, only with regard to the other part of the plea. In that context, it may be noticed that pure and simple plea of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the defendants/vendors Civil Revision No. 6275 of 2008 -2- **** therein had executed the impugned agreement of sell off their half share in the property in suit to the plaintiffs-respondents. The defendants-petitioners denied having executed the impugned agreement. The further plea in the context was that the signatures of the defendant no.7 therein had been obtained by defendant no.1 therein and the plaintiffs-respondents on a representation that "his signatures were being required only as token of consent by Defendant No.2 to 6 as co-owners, to the sale of the other ½ share by defendant No.1." However, the learned Trial Court did not frame any issue on the aspect of affirmative pleadings and framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the signatures of defendant NO.7 on behalf of defendants No.2 to 6 were taken on agreement to sell by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 by misrepresentation?OPD No.2 to 7. 2. Whether the agreement cannot be specifically enforced?OPD 1 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?OPD 1 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-service of notice under section 98 of Punjab Town Imp. Act, 1922?OPD 8 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the defendant No.8 has been misjoiner in Civil Revision No. 6275 of 2008 -3- **** the present suit?OPD 8. 7. Relief. " It is apparent from a perusal of the pleadings of the parties that the learned Trial Court omitted to frame an issue of affirmative character, the onus thereof has to be compulsively upon the plaintiffs-respondents. The learned Trial Court shall proceed to frame an issue of an affirmative character whereby plaintiffs-respondents shall be required to discharge the onus of proving that the defendants no. 2 to 7 therein had executed the impugned agreement. The other (already framed) issues shall also stay otherwise. Disposed of accordingly. April 20, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge