Civil Revision No.1169 of 2011 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 23, 2011. Civil Revision No.1169 of 2011 (O & M ) Smt. Savita Dass and another ….Petitioners Versus Smt.Deepa Partap Dass and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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: Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. MOHINDER PAL, J. The defendants-petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court whereby their application for framing of additional issues in a suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents against them for possession of Property No.170/2-5, Sadar Bazar Road, Civil Revision No.1169 of 2011 (O & M ) Ambala Cantt, by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 11.9.1993 was dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the defendants- petitioners and going through the impugned order, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties, were framed by the trial Court as far back as 6.9.2006. One of the issues framed was “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the agreement to sell dated 11.9.1993 specifically enforced, as alleged ? OPP.” Apparently, this issue is sufficient to decide the controversy involved in the suit. It appears that the defendants- petitioners filed the application for framing of additional issues just to delay the decision of the suit. The trial Court was justified in declining this application of the defendants-petitioners by passing the impugned order. Dismissed. Dated: February 23,2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE