C.R. No. 5656 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5656 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 07.09.2010 Sher Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Bhola Ram & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the learned trial Court, vide which two applications moved by the petitioner were ordered to be dismissed. The first application moved by the petitioner was to submit interrogatories to the respondent / defendants. The learned trial Court rejected the application, primarily on the ground, that on earlier occasion a similar application was moved, which was declined and that the interrogatories sought were irrelevant to the matter in issue. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not presse this application of interrogatories, therefore, the impugned part of the order dismissing the application for interrogatories is upheld. C.R. No. 5656 of 2010 -2- **** The second application moved by the petitioner was that the proper issues were not framed and the issues framed needed to be recasted. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the learned trial Court while rejecting the application ignored the well settled law, that the Court has to frame all the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. In support of the contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to his plaint to show, that the petitioner had challenged two decrees, i.e. one suffered by Smt. Nand Kaur in favour of Girdhan on 23.7.1984, and second decree suffered by Girdhan in favour of Vijay Pal and another on 14.2.1998. These decrees were challenged being illegal, void and outcome of fraud and misrepresentation. The stand of petitioner was denied by the defendants, therefore, the Court was bound to frame the issue regarding the validity of second decree dated 14.2.1998. This plea of the petitioner is not covered under any issue. The file shows that on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- (i) Whether impugned judgment and decree dated 23.7.1984 is wrong, null and void and liable to be set aside ? OPP (ii) Whether Mutation No. 138 dt. 29.8.1926, No. 29 dt. 14.3.1943, No. 646 dt. 22.12.1999 as well as revenue record entry prepared on the basis of these mutations, null and void, illegal C.R. No. 5656 of 2010 -3- **** and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs? OPP (iii) Whether the Gift deed transaction of the year 1943 is efficacious as alleged in the plaint?OPD (iv) Whether the plaintiffs and the profo9rma def. No. 5 & 6 are owner of the suit land in equal shares as claimed ? OPP (v) Whether the def. No. 2 & 3 are liable to hand over the possession of the suit property ?OPP (vi) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for injunctions as prayed for? OPP (vii) Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD (viii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?OPD (ix) Relief.” The reading of the issues clearly shows that qua the challenge to the decree dated 14.2.1998, issue has not been framed. In view of the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement in this Court, that the petitioner will not lead any evidence, if the issues are ordered to be reframed. Therefore, there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondent, as this revision petition can be disposed off by amending issue No.1 to read as under :- “Whether impugned judgments and decrees dated 23.7.1994 and 14.2.1998 are wrong, null and void and liable to be set aside ? OPP The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners C.R. No. 5656 of 2010 -4- **** that onus of issues are also required to be fixed on defendant / respondents, is declined. With the modification in the issue No.1 as mentioned above, the impugned order is upheld. Keeping in view that the revision petition has been partly allowed, the imposition of cost by the learned trial Court is waived off. Revision petition disposed off in above terms. 07.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE