Civil Revision No.4493 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.4493 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : August 11, 2009 Barbans Singh alias Bhola Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Angrej Kaur alias Nikki and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.7.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Bathinda, whereby, the application of the plaintiff – petitioner (herein referred as `the plaintiff') for framing of an additional issue was declined. Counsel for the plaintiff has raised the plea that though he had taken the plea of coparcener before the Trial Court, yet the Trial Court did not frame any specific issue in this regard. However, on bare perusal of issues No.(ii) and (iii), which are reproduced below, it transpires that the sale-deed could be set aside only if the Court holds the property as coparcenary:- “(ii) Whether the sale deed bearing No.1241 dated 10.5.2002 executed by Jagroop Singh in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 is without any legal necessity and not binding qua the rights of plaintiff? OPP Civil Revision No.4493 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] (iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to joint possession of the suit land? OPP” Any way, since the counsel has pleaded that in the absence of the specific issue with regard to coparcenary, the plaintiff could not prove exert in order to establish the nature of the property and he may be allowed to produce the exert in his rebuttal. Having considered the submissions of the counsel, it is observed that since the plea of coparcenary is inherent in issue Nos.(ii) and (iii) (reproduced above), therefore, the Court will not hesitate in deciding the question of coparcenary while deciding these issues. However, inorder to provide complete justice to the petitioner and remove his apprehension that he could not lead necessary evidence in the absence of the issue, thereby, he was prejudiced, the plaintiff could be allowed to lead evidence by way of producing the exert in rebuttal evidence, subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs. Needless to state that to safeguard the rights of the defendants – respondents, they may be permitted to rebut the said evidence. This petition is disposed of accordingly, without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move this court for recalling this order. August 11, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE