Civil Revision No.42 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.42 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 5, 2011 Mohinder Singh .....Petitioner v. Kartar Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.134-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.42 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the order dated 6.12.2010, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi, vide which application filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was partly allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi. Law is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court can interfere only if there is some error manifest apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. The present suit has been filed by the present petitioner- Civil Revision No.42 of 2011 (O&M) -2- plaintiff for specific performance for agreement to sell allegedly executed by defendant in his favour. The defendant, on the other hand, has pleaded that plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands and did not give the details of relations between the parties and hence the plaintiff misused the trust imposed by her in the plaintiff, as parties are closely related. Issues were framed by learned trial Court. Evidence was adduced by both the parties when the present application was filed for framing of three more additional issues. However, learned trial Court on the basis of pleadings of parties framed one more additional issue, i.e. Issue No.5-A, which reads as under:- “5-A. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the Court ? If so, its effect? OPD” However, learned trial Court did not consider the request of petitioner-plaintiff to frame two more issues. Petitioner filed present suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. Law is well settled that plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and has to prove its case. He has to prove that agreement to sell is validly executed by defendant and this fact is to be proved by plaintiff by adducing affirmative evidence. He has already adduced his evidence. Defendant was only to lead evidence to show that transaction is fraudulent one and the agreement to sell was not validly executed. Evidence was already adduced by defendant and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and argument when the present application for framing of additional issues was filed. Hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court by partly allowing the said application, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. 5.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge