The duty of the Court to frame proper/specific issues on all the points raised in the pleadings, even if a party could not press for an issue at the initial stage, and the party is not debarred from claiming of framing an additional issue at the later stage.

Darshan Singh, J.

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Naraingarh, whereby the application moved by the petitioner-plaintiffs for framing additional issue with respect to the Will has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent-defendants have propounded the Will dated 03.11.1979 allegedly executed by deceased Agar Singh in their favour. But, the learned trial Court has not framed any issue with respect to the valid execution of the Will. He contended that the learned trial Court should have framed the specific issue with respect to the validity of the Will as per the pleadings.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the application has been moved when the case was fixed at the stage of arguments. The plaintiffs were aware of the pleadings with respect to the Will. In fact, they have challenged the Will. The parties have also led their respective evidence. Thus, they contended that the controversy between the parties can be effectively decided under the already framed issues. To support their contentions, they relied upon cases Dera Baba Budh Ram and others v. Mahabir Singh 2014(1) PLJ 239, Smt. Kamla and another v. Bhoop Singh and another 2010(5) R.C.R (Civil) 674, Surinder Singh v. Kuldeep Singh and others 2015(8) R.C.R (Civil) 107 and Tika and others v. Ram Chander and others 2003(3) R.C.R (Civil) 541. They further contended that as the plaintiffs-petitioners have not claimed for framing of this issue at the relevant time, it will be deemed they have waved their right for framing this issue. They further contended that various applications moved by the petitioners were dismissed by the Court. The present application has also been moved only to prolong the proceedings of the case, which has already become old and is pending for the last about five years.

4. I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

5. In the application moved by plaintiff-petitioners for framing the additional issue, it has been proposed that the following additional issue should be framed:-

"5-A. Whether the Will dated 03.11.1979 was validly executed by Agar Singh, now deceased, in favour of the defendants?OPD.

6. This fact is not disputed that the plaintiffs have challenged the Will dated 03.11.1979 and the defendant-respondents are pleading that the said Will was validly executed by deceased Agar Singh in their favour. So, there is a specific plea regarding the valid execution of the Will raised by the defendant-respondents. They are defending the suit filed by the plaintiffs by propounded the Will dated 03.11.1979 allegedly executed by Agar Singh. When, there were specific pleadings with respect to the Will, it was obligatory on the part of the Court to frame a specific issue with respect to the valid execution of the Will in order to properly adjudicate upon the matter in issue. To support this view reference can be made to cases Sher Singh v. General Public 2001(3) R.C.R (Civil) 780 and P.B. Kasee Sah v. P.T. Hiru Sah 2012(2) MLJ 73.

7. As it is the duty of the Court to frame the proper/specific issues on all the points raised in the pleadings. Even if a party could not press for an issue at the initial stage that party is not debarred from claiming of framing an additional issue at the later stage. Reference can be made to case Rajinder Tandon v. Thomas Nasir Masih 1999(1) R.C.R (Civil) 539.

8. Thus, mere this fact that the application for additional issue has been moved at the belated stage is no ground to decline the request when this fact is not disputed that his issue arises from the pleadings of the parties.

9. No doubt, previous applications moved by the plaintiffs for additional evidence and permission to lead evidence in rebuttal has been dismissed. Those orders were also unsuccessfully challenged before this Court. The Civil Revision No. 3294 of 2013 w