IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3929 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 17.07.2009 Mohinder Singh ......Petitioner VERSUS Gurdeep Kaur and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition, preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as 'the petitioner') is directed against the order dated 04.05.2009, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi District Kapurthala whereby application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues upon preliminary objections taken in the written statement, had been dismissed. The plaintiff has filed this suit for joint possession claiming that the suit property is an ancestral property and defendant No.1 could not alienate the same by way of three sale deeds dated 25.05.2003 without legal necessity and benefit of the estate. To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents, amongst other pleas, has also stated that the suit is time barred; It has been under valued and has been filed against the provisions of order 32 Rule 3 C.P.C. as no application has been filed by the plaintiff for appointment of the Court Guardian for minor defendants. The land, measuring 48 kanals 7 marlas Civil Revision No.3929 of 2009 (O&M) -2- was the property of defendant No.1, therefore, he had every right to alienate the same. The land measuring 42 kanal 4 marlas, which is claimed as ancestral land, used to be cultivated by defendant No.1 on lease basis. The meager income, arising out of the alleged ancestral land 22 kanals 4 marlas was used for the family expenses, so the said property was sold to add to the income which he was earning from the cultivation after borrowing certain amount from friends and relatives etc., he arranged funds and purchased the suit land and thus the suit property became his self acquired property and the plaintiff has no locus standi or cause of action to file the suit. He is estopped to file the suit by his own act and conduct. He has suppressed true and material facts from the Court and has not come to Court with clean hands. It was also averred that the land measuring 22 kanals 4 marlas is actually not ancestral one. The sale deed dated 25.05.2003 was executed for consideration, benefit of the estate and for better management of land. On examination of the issues, it appears that all issues which arise out of the pleadings of the parties have not been framed. It is settled by now that the Court is bound to frame all the specific issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties upon which the parties are at variance. However, framing of the issue is a matter between the Court and the pleadings, therefore, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to examine and frame all the issues which arise out of the pleadings of the parties. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 17.07.2009 mamta-II