Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

1. This revision arises out of an order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Narnaul dismissing the application of the plaintiffs/petitioners wherein they had prayed for framing of additional issue as well as for leading additional evidence.

2. The petitioners have claimed that out of the pleadings of the parties, one issue, namely, "Whether disputed property is coparcenary property of Hindu undivided family, if so its effect" arises but has not been framed and they had also prayed for leading additional evidence so as to bring on record some judgment and decree and revenue records. The case of the defendants/ respondents is that out of nine issues framed by the trial Court, issues No. 1 and 3 covers the contentions of the plaintiffs, therefore, there is no need to frame any separate and distinct issue and that the issues were framed on 1.2.2002 and the plaintiffs evidence was concluded on 1.3.2006 but at no stage, they had sought any issue which is now being claimed and that the parties have gone to the trial with full knowledge of each others case and led their evidence, therefore, no separate issue is required. In respect of the