CR No. 918 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 918 of 2010 Date of decision:- 25.8.2010 Mahant Sher Singh ......petitioner vs. Jarnail Singh and others ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. S. S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate for respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by learned trial Court on 29.1.2010, whereby the application for framing the additional issues was dismissed. The plaintiff wishes to frame the following two additional issues: - i) Whether plaintiff had adopted the religious life and had become of Chela of his Guru Mahant Jai Singh prior to 1975? OPP ii) Whether suit land was owned and possessed by Mahant Jai Singh Chela Mahant Ram Singh before inheritance by plaintiff?OPP The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for declaration claiming title over the property as Chela of Mahant Jai Singh as he has, prior to 1975, adopted the religious life. It has also been pointed out that it was Mahant Jai Singh Chela Mahant Ram Singh who was owner of the suit land described in para 2 of the plaint. On the basis of the said pleadings, the following issues No 1 was framed by the learned trial Court on 25.3.2002: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of land in question as alleged? CR No. 918 of 2010 -2- The application for framing the additional issues was filed on 28.2.2009 when not only the plaintiff has concluded his entire evidence but the case was fixed for cross-examination of DW-6. The application has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiff has sought framing of additional issues after gross delay and the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the additional issues sought to be framed are adequately covered by issue No.1. The pleadings of the plaintiff are that Mahant Jai Singh was the owner of the land in dispute and that the plaintiff has become Chela of Mahant Jai Singh, having adopted the religious life prior to 1975. Such facts have been clearly pleaded in the plaint in issue No.1. Therefore, the additional issues sought to be framed by the petitioner in fact covered by issue No.1. In fact, it appears that petitioner under the grab of additional issues wishes to fill up the lacuna in his evidence. The plaintiff can be permitted to make up the deficiencies in his case at this stage. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned trial Court which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 25.8.2010 preeti