IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5499 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 4, 2011. Amar Kaur ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Mahinder Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Garg, Advocate for the respondents. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 09.06.2010, Annexure P1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Barnala. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. CR No.5499 of 2010 Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, suit was filed by present petitioner-plaintiff for declaration that he is owner of the plot in dispute duly described in the headnote of the plaint by way of Will dated 08.06.1990 and the sale deed dated 17.01.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 is null and void, with consequential relief of possession. Suit was contested by respondents- defendants. In the said suit, the below noted issues were framed by learned trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of will dated 8.6.1990 executed by Maghar Singh?OPP 2. Whether Maghar Singh executed a will dated 18.11.1988 in favour of defendant No.1?OPP 3. Whether Will dated 8.6.1990 is last executed Will by Maghar Singh?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?OPD 6. Whether suit is not maintainable?OPD 7. Whether suit is not filed within limitation?OPD 8. Relief.” The present petitioner-plaintiff adduced his evidence. His evidence was closed by learned trial Court and the case was fixed for evidence of defendants, when an application was moved on behalf of the defendants for framing of additional issue. The said application was not 2 CR No.5499 of 2010 opposed by petitioner-plaintiff and hence, the following additional Issue was framed by learned trial Court:- “1A. Whether Maghar Singh s/o Suhawa Singh was owner in possession of suit property?OPP The present petitioner-plaintiff was given another opportunity to lead his evidence on the addition of said issue No.1A. One witness was examined by petitioner-plaintiff after framing of additional issue. However, objection was raised on behalf of respondents-defendants that the evidence was being adduced by petitioner-plaintiff on other issues as well, whereas he was permitted to adduce his evidence on the additional issue and that he has already adduced evidence on the said issues and his evidence already stood closed. Learned trial Court passed the following order on 09.06.2010:- “PW5 examined. PW Amar Kaur plaintiff is present for her testimony. Copy of her affidavit when supplied to counsel for defendant, he submits that some of its parts are beyond the purview of evidence qua additional issue No.1-A. Let this aspect be looked into and adjudicated to the final stage but it is made clear to both the learned counsel that evidence of plaintiff now be led regarding only additional issue No.1-A, shall be looked into as per last order and evidence beyond relevancy qua this issue shall not be looked into. Let this witness of plaintiff, Amar Kaur be examined.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that evidence cannot be restricted to issue No.1-A only and that hence, learned trial Court has committed illegality in passing the impugned order. 3 CR No.5499 of 2010 However, there is no force in the plea taken by the petitioner- plaintiff. Evidence of petitioner-plaintiff on the issues framed earlier was closed. On application moved by the defendants learned trial Court ordered for framing of additional issue No.1-A. He was only permitted to lead evidence on additional issue No.1-A which was added on request of learned counsel for the defendants to which petitioner-plaintiff did not object. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 4, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4