IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3410 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: October 14, 2011 Smt. Anjali Trivedi .. Petitioner Vs. Devinder Singh and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.4.2011 (Annexure P4) passed by the trial court whereby application moved by the respondent No.2 herein, for framing additional issues on maintainability and limitation, has been allowed. The learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the onus to prove these two additional issues, as framed by the trial court vide order dated 19.4.2011, was upon the defendant, but the defendant does not want to lead any evidence. However, liberty could be granted to the plaintiff to lead any evidence in order to establish that his suit is within limitation and maintainable. Having scrutinized the impugned order, it may be observed that the trial court fell in error to hold that the plaintiff was supposed to lead evidence on the pleas as set up by him even in the absence of the issues as parties are supposed to lead evidence on the issues in controversy, as framed by the court, as such, therefore, right of the parties to lead evidence cannot Civil Revision No. 3410 of 2011 -2- *** be curtailed after the new issues are framed. Consequently, the instant petition is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 19.4.2011 (Annexure P4) is modified to the extent that the plaintiff would be at liberty to lead any evidence on the additional issues as the case is already fixed for rebuttal evidence. October 14, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge