Civil Revision No.6548 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6548 of 2009 Date of Decision : 28.11.2009 Jarnail Singh ....Petitioner Versus Gurpal Singh & Ors .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Mr. I.S.Saggi, Advocate for Present: Mr. I.P.S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. ** * Sabina,J.(Oral) Plaintiffs-respondents no.1 and 2 have filed a suit for declaration that they were exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. The suit was filed in the year 2000. Defendants filed their written statement. Issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties. On 29.10.2008, additional issue No.2(A) was framed which reads as under: 2-A: Whether the suit property is ancestral coparcenary property?OPD. Now, the case is listed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs and arguments. After one year of the framing of the additional issue, an application was moved by the defendants that issue no.2(A) had not been corectly framed in consonance with the pleadings of the parties. Vide the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence, Civil Revision No.6548 of 2009 2 the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. The application for re-framing of issue no.2(A) has been filed after one year of the framing of the said issue. Now, the suit is at the final stage of hearing. In these circumstances, the learned trial court rightly held that the application had been filed merely to delay the decision of the case. The additional issue was framed in the presence of the parties their counsel and at that time, no objection was raised regarding the language of issue framed. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. 28th Nov.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge