C.R. No. 3070 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3070 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 11.5.2010 Chander Kanta .......... Petitioner Versus Smt. Neelam & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.4.2010 (Annexure P-3), vide which application moved by the petitioner for framing of an additional issue, “That the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1979, passed in Civil Suit No. 617 of 1979 was illegal, null and void” stands dismissed. The petitioner / plaintiff had not challenged, the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1979 in the plaint filed by him. After filing of written statement, the plaintiff / petitioner filed replication, wherein the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1979 was challenged. The learned trial Court did not frame issue qua the legality of decree dated 15.11.1979. The petitioner did not claim or move any application, for framing of an issue at the time when the issues were framed. However, subsequently, the petitioner moved an application, C.R. No. 3070 of 2010 -2- for amendment of the plaint to challenge the judgment and decree dated 15.11.1979. The application for amendment was dismissed. The petitioner preferred, a revision petition against the order rejecting his application for amendment. This Court while dismissing the revision petition recorded as under :- “8............................It, therefore, could not be said that she had no knowledge, with regard to the decree, dated 15.11.1979. Such a decree could not be challenged after a period of 30 years from the date of passing the same. The plea, which the plaintiff, wanted to set up by way of amendment of the plaint, therefore, could be said to be palpably barred by time.” Though, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court holding, that additional issue, could not be framed after commencement of the trial at a belated stage, cannot be sustained in law, as the Court at any stage of the proceedings, is competent to frame issue arising out of the pleadings of the parties. In the facts and circumstances of this case it can be said, that by way of additional issue the petitioner wanted to challenge the order, which was affirmed by this Court, which is not permissible. The plaintiff had earlier sought amendment of the plaint, to challenge the decree which was passed 30 years ago. There was no occasion for him to claim the issue after the order passed by this Court in revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contends, that even after the dismissal of the application for amendment, the learned C.R. No. 3070 of 2010 -3- Court was bound to frame the issue arising out of the pleadings of the parties. As the replication is to be held as part of the pleadings. The challenge to the decree was in dispute, between the parties, therefore, an additional issue was to be framed, which the learned Court could frame at its own motion, or on an application moved by the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings. The order passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, for the reason, that there is a positive finding by this Court, as well as by the learned trial Court, on the application for amendment of plaint moved by the petitioner, that it was not open to the plaintiff / petitioner to challenge the decree which was passed 30 years ago. In view of the findings of this Court, no useful purpose would be served by framing this issue, as petitioner can not challenge the decree after 30 years. For the reasons stated, finding no merit in this revision, it is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. 11.5.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE