Civil Revision No. 44 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 44 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.1.2011 Mithan Lal ......petitioner Versus Sumkan Bansal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession by way of partition. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court, as reproduced in para 3 of the petition:- “1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for possession of 1/4th share by way of partition of suit property in question ? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 3. Whether suit of plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder and Civil Revision No. 44 of 2011 (O&M) 2 non-joinder necessary parties? OPD. 4. Whether suit is barred by time of limitation? OPD. 5. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD. 6. Relief. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application seeking framing of an additional issue. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.7.2010. Hence, the present revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the defendant-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a specific objection had been taken in the written statement that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filling the suit. However, no issue had been framed in this regard. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Thota Rambabu @ Ramu vs. Cherukuri Venkateswara Rao @ Pedababu and others 2006 (1) CCC 0506. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present revision petition deserves to be dismissed. The trial Court, while dismissing the application, in para 5 of the impugned order, has held as under:- “Having heard the arguments, I am of the considered view that the instant application lacks merit. Perusal of written Civil Revision No. 44 of 2011 (O&M) 3 statement filed by defendants reveals that they have taken legal objections with regard to locus standi of plaintiff, regarding act and conduct of plaintiff and stopping plaintiff thereto from filing the suit, filing less court fee and regarding limitation etc. and the defence taken by the defendants to the case of plaintiff is detailed there in by the defendants in the written statement in paras on merit of the case and which is in support of legal objections taken by the defendants including the legal objections to including stopping the plaintiff from filing the suit on account of his act and conduct and accordingly evidence has been led by the parties and therefore, there arises no necessity for specifically framing this issue as mentioned in the application, as the evidence led on record shall entail the composite effect while deciding merits of the case including such legal objections taken by defendants. More, so this instant application has been moved after framing of issue on 23.7.2007 and when suit is fixed for rebuttal evidence of plaintiff after then even defendants have concluded their evidence which also warrants rejection of instant application.” Thus, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner while holding that the evidence led on record shall entail the composite effect while deciding merits of the case including Civil Revision No. 44 of 2011 (O&M) 4 such legal objections taken by the defendants and hence, there was no necessity for specifically framing the issue claimed by the petitioner. The reasons given by the trial Court, while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, are sound reasons and hence, no interference by this court is called for. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 05, 2011 anita