Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Kuljeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kulwinder Kaur & Ors. – Respondents
CR-5583-2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 28-09-2022
Additional Issues - Framing of Additional Issues - Order 14 Rule 5 CPC - 04.08.2014, 30.05.2016 - Whether the plaintiff entered into oral agreement with defendant No.1 to sell his land, as alleged in para No.4 of the written statement ? OPD-1, Whether defendant No.1 is bonafide purchaser for value and without as alleged in para No.3 of the written statement ? OPD-1
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming ownership of land and challenging a registered Power of Attorney and sale deeds. The defendant-respondents contested the suit, claiming a power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff-petitioner in favor of defendant-respondent No.2, who then executed sale deeds in favor of defendant-respondent No.1 based on an oral agreement to sell.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues framed on 04.08.2014 and 30.05.2016 already covered the matters sought to be additionally framed. The court noted that both parties were aware of the controversy and had led evidence on the issues. The court concluded that no ground was made out to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition.
Issues: The plaintiff-petitioner sought framing of additional issues under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. The defendant-respondents contested the application, arguing that the issues already framed covered the matters sought to be additionally framed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that additional issues can be framed at any point of time, but in this case, the issues were already framed and both parties were aware of the controversy and had led evidence on the issues. The court cited precedents to support the principle that omission to frame an issue would not vitiate the trial if the parties were aware of the issue and led evidence on it.
Final Decision: The court found no error of law or jurisdiction by the Trial Court in passing the impugned order and dismissed the revision petition.
JUDGMENT
Alka Sarin, J. - The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 26.08.2019 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issues has been declined.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffpetitioner filed a suit for declaration as well as injunction averring therein that he was owner in possession of land measuring 23 kanals 19 marlas, 13 kanals 8 marlas, 37 kanals 17 marlas, 42 kanals 16 marlas, 4 kanals 2 marlas, 12 kanals, 12 kanals 5 marlas as per jamabandi for the year 2003-2004, situated at village Dhaula, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and further challenged the registered Power of Attorney dated 25.06.2010 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Ludhiana as illegal, null and void as a result of coercion and fraud played by respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the wife and son of the petitioner, as also for a declaration that the sale deeds dated 01.07.2010,08.07.2010 and 13.07.2010 were null and void.
3. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents who stated that a power of attorney was executed by the plaintiff-petitioner in favour of the defendantrespondent No.2 who then, on the basis of the power of attorney, executed sale deeds dated 01.07.2010, 08.07.2010 and 30.07.2010 in favour of defendantrespondent No.1 on the basis of an oral agreement to sell. It was averred that there was no sale deed dated 13.07.2010 and that the same is 30.07.2010.
4. On 04.08.2014, the following issues were framed :
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for ? OPP
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as the plaintiff has not paid the requisite ad-valorem Court fee and hence plaint is liable to be dismissed ? OPD
4) Whether the plaintiff is not in possession any portion of the property ? OPD
5) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
6) Whether the suit is based on false, frivolous and vexatious allegations as no fraud has been placed by defendants 1 & 2 and the sale deed has been executed with valuable consideration, if so its effect ? OPD
7) Whether the plaintiff is stopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD
8) Whether the present suit is not maintainable as present suit has been filed by plaintiff in connivance with defendants No.1 & 2, if so its effect ? OPD
9) Whether the plaintiff has not approached to the Court with clean hands and as such suit is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost ? OPD
10) Relief.
5. Thereafter, during the pendency of the suit, an application was filed by the defendant-respondents for re-framing of the issues, which were eventually re-framed on 30.05.2016. The reframed issues are as under :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declarations as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction as the plaintiff has not paid the requisite ad-valorem court fee and hence the plaint is liable to be dismissed ? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of any portion of the property ? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
6. Whether any fraud has been played by the defendant as alleged in the plaint and whether the power of attorney and sale deeds are the result of fraud and the sale deeds are without valuable consideration as alleged by the plaintiff ? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is stopped by this act and conduct to file the present suit ? OPD
8. Whether the present suit is not maintainable as present suit has been filed by the plaintiff in connivance with the defendant number 1 an
Omission to frame an issue would not vitiate the trial if the parties were aware of the issue and led evidence on it.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the proposed issues by the defendant no.1 were already covered by existing issues and did not need to be separately framed. The Court also emp....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an additional issue can be framed at any point of time, but if the existing issues are broad enough to cover the entire controversy and eviden....
The burden of proving a fact rests on the party asserting it, and the court has discretion in amending and striking out issues under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC.
Existing legal issues sufficiently addressed the matter in controversy, making the request for additional issues unnecessary and delaying proceedings.
The burden of proof lies on the person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. In this case, the appellants did not discharge their burden of proving their stand, and the cour....
Additional evidence to prove a will was denied due to failure to present it timely in relation to framed issues.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
