Civil Revision No. 2062 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2062 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.1.2009 Ombir ..... Petitioner vs Shadi and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J. L. Malhotra, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 and 10. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 15.01.2008 passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner/ defendant for framing of additional issues was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that respondents no. 1 to 10 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondents no. 11 and 12 from interfering into their possession. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner purchased part of the land from respondent no. 12- M/s Amtex Auto Limited who had been sold the land by Raj Pal respondent no. 11. Thereafter, on an application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC, he was impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit which was filed on 30.4.1996. Thereafter, on 3.1.2008, the petitioner moved an application for framing of additional issues. This application was dismissed by the learned court below and the order is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that correct issues were not struck by the learned court below at the relevant time in terms of the provisions of Order XIV Rule 15 CPC. The court is fully competent to amend/strike out or frame new issues which are required for proper determination of the lis between the parties and the issues in the present petition being relevant having escaped from the notice of the court below are proper and necessary if the pleadings of the parties are considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the application was totally misconceived. The suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is for grant of injunction. No title of the property was claimed and for that purpose, all the relevant issues have already been framed. The Civil Revision No. 2062 of 2008 (2) object of the application was to delay the disposal of the suit which is lingering since 1994. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. The petitioner in the application filed before the learned court below sought to include the following additional issues:- (a) “Whether the Custodian Department had no salable right in suit land to sell the same to defendant No. 1 as alleged in Para No. 3 of the plaint?OPP (b) Whether the suit land was evacue property as alleged if so, to what effect? OPD (c) Whether the Custodian Department, the Teshildar Sales, State of Haryana is necessary party in the case? OPD (d) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD (e) Whether the plaintiffs has concealed and suppressed true and material facts from this Hon'ble Court, if so to what effect? OPD” It is a suit filed by respondents no. 1 to 10 seeking permanent injunction. Issues which are required to consider the prayer made by respondents no. 1 to 10 in the suit have been framed. A bare perusal of the additional issues which are sought to be framed by the petitioner shows that the same have relation with the title of the property and nothing to do with the prayer in the suit regarding permanent injunction. Relevance of the issues, which are sought to be framed as additional, vis-a-vis the prayer in the suit is to be considered at the time of consideration of the prayer in this regard. As the additional issues sought to be framed have no relevance with the point in issue, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed. 22.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge