Civil Revision No.4826 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-26.7.2010 Ranjit Singh son of Gurdev Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Balbir Kaur wife of Jasbir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms.Sonal Dutt, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.Balbir Singh, Advocate for respondents No.6 & 9. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The brief facts, relevant for disposal of the present revision petition and emanating from the record, are that having completed the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues/additional issue for proper adjudication of the case. The defendants moved an application for deleting issue No.4-A, which is to the following effect:- “Whether Pritam Singh executed Will dated 30.4.1981 in favour of Gurdarshan Singh, Balwinder Singh, Sukhjinder Singh, Devinder Singh sons and Jasmer Kaur wife of Gurdev Singh. If so its effect?OPD” 2. The trial Court dismissed the application, vide impugned order dated 26.7.2008. 3. The petitioner-defendants did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and filed the present revision petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the revision petition. 5. The trial Court, while deciding the application for deleting issue Civil Revision No.4826 of 2008 2 No.4-A, observed as under:- “After going through the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, earlier also application filed by the plaintiff was accepted and after hearing detailed arguments vide order dated 1.12.2005 additional issue nos.1A and 4A were framed. Another additional issue no.4B was framed on 9.3.2006. Since the issues have already been framed, I am of the view that same cannot be deleted as they had arisen from pleadings of the parties. The case is already of the year 25.10.2001. Plaintiff has closed his evidence. Let defendants lead their evidence and the plaintiff should cross-examine him. However, at the final stage of any issue is found irrelevant and does not arise from the pleadings of the parties, same can be not pressed. As such, the application of the defendants is hereby disposed of. Let witnesses of the defendants be summoned for 13.8.2008.” 6. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons in dismissing the application of the petitioner-defendants. Therefore, to me, trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in this relevant connection and no interference is warranted in the impugned order in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 26.7.2010 Judge AS