IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1056 of 2008 Date of decision: February 20, 2008. Avtar Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Maharaj Bir Singh & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri R.D. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 12.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa whereby the respondent – plaintiff has been directed to “lead evidence positively within two dates”. The aforesaid direction has been issued after examining three plaintiff's witnesses on that very date. The petitioners are the defendants in the said civil suit. Their grievance is that since the respondent – plaintiffs have already led their evidence pursuant to the issues framed by the learned trial court on 5.11.2003, they ought not to have been permitted to lead fresh evidence pursuant to the issues which were framed earlier on 3.6.1999, more so when their application to lead additional evidence had already been dismissed. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues on 3.6.1999:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as alleged in the head note of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the suit of plaintiff is liable to be rejected under order VII Rule 11 CPC? OPD 3. Whether the suit is neither entertainable nor maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has not come in the court with clean hands, if so to what effect? OPD 7. Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs u/s 35-A of the CPC? OPD 8. Relief” Thereafter an application for impleadment as a defendant was moved by one Baldev Singh and while allowing the same, the learned trial court again framed the following issues on 5.11.2003:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit properties as mentioned in the head note of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed with special costs? OPD 5. Relief.” Meanwhile, the order dated 19.11.2005 was passed by the learned trial court dismissing an application under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Sections 151 and 153 CPC for framing an additional issue. Aggrieved, the respondent – plaintiff preferred Civil Revision No.6392 of 2005 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.8.2007 in the following terms:- “At this juncture, a consensus has been arrived at between the learned counsel for the parties to the effect that the issues which were framed by the learned trial court on 3.6.1999 squarely covers the controversy between the parties and hence the same can be adjudicated upon, without there being any need of issues framed on 5.11.2003. In view of the above, the issues framed by the trial court on 5.11.2003 are ordered to be deleted. The impugned order dated 19.11.2005 passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The instant petition is disposed of in the above terms, with a direction to the learned trial court to adjudicate the matter, in accordance with law, on the basis of issue framed on 3.6.1999. However, keeping in view the fact that the suit is pending since 1998, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceedings and to dispose of the suit preferably within a period of nine months, from the date the parties put in appearance before. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 10.9.2007.” As may be seen, the issues framed by the learned trial court on 5.11.2003 were set aside and in place thereof, the issues framed on 3.6.1999 stood revived. If one compares issue No.1 framed on 3.6.1999 with issue No.1 framed subsequently on 5.11.2003, it is apparent that in the suit for 'permanent injunction', the originally framed issue pertained to the plaintiff's possession, whereas issue No.1, which was subsequently framed on 3.11.2003 pertained to his ownership over the suit properties. The evidence led by the respondent – plaintiff on issue No.1 framed on 5.11.2003, thus, relates to his alleged ownership over the suit properties instead of his possessory rights on the basis of which a decree for permanent injunction was sought. In these circumstances when the issues framed earlier on 3.6.1999 have been revived, the learned trial court has rightly permitted the plaintiff – respondent to lead evidence in respect thereof. No case to interfere with the impugned order is, thus, made out. Dismissed. February 20, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge