The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of specific and categoric framing of issues to effectively decide disputes and advance substantive justice, as evidenced by the allowance of the framing of the additional issue under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC.

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff against order dated 23.3.2018 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing of additional issue, has been dismissed.

2. Present petition is resisted by counsel for respondents No.1 and 2.

3. I have heard counsel for the parties.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, Tilak Raj Sharma father of the petitioner namely Swatanter Bala filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/ defendants-Sourabhdeep Sharma, Mandeep wife of Sourabhdeep Sharma, Karaj Singh Dairywala, Gurpreet Singh and Meharinder Singh alias Mehar from alienating the suit property and further, the suit for declaration to the effect that Tilak Raj Sharma has disinherited respondents No.1 and 2 from his moveable and immoveable properties vide duly attested affidavit published in newspaper Nawan Zamana, Amritsar dated 18.12.2012 with decree for mandatory injunction to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to vacate the suit property; that Tilak Raj Sharma died and his daughter Swatanter Bala stepped into his shoes and is pursuing the suit. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the plaint, there are specific pleadings that Tilak Raj Sharma disinherited respondents No.1 and 2 i.e. Sourabhdeep Sharma and Mandeep from his entire moveable and immovable property vide duly attested affidavit published in newspaper dated 18.12.2012. It is further submitted that respondents No.1 and 2 filed written statement to the amended plaint wherein they simply denied the fact that Tilak Raj Sharma had disinherited them from his properties. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that specific denial with regard to the aforesaid affidavit was made by respondents No.1 and 2 when Sourabhdeep Sharma appeared in the witness box as DW2 and denied the signatures of his grandfather Tilak Raj Sharma on the affidavit Ex.P7. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that immediately thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC on 15.3.2018 for framing of additional issue as follows : -

a) Whether the disinherited deed by way of registered affidavit dated 18.12.2012 is valid one? OPP”

5. The said application was contested by respondents No.1 and 2 and was finally declined by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.3.2018. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, the Court may at any time before passing a decree, amend issues or frame additional issue and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. Present petition is contested by counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 who inter alia contends that issues which are already framed by the learned trial Court does not need any amendment and are properly framed. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 further submits that the petitioner was well aware of the matter in dispute from the very beginning but remained silent at the initial stage and now the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and at this belated stage, the petitioner intends to lead fresh evidence under the guise of an application moved under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 while supporting the impugned order submits that the present revision petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.

8. There is no doubt that Tilak Raj Sharma father of Swatanter Bala and grandfather of respondent No.1 filed civil suit wherein Tilak Raj Sharma pleaded that he has disinherited respondent No.1 and his wife Mandeep (respondent No.2) vide duly attested affidavit published in the newspaper dated 18.12.2012. The suit was contested by respondents No.1 and 2. The issues were framed on 9.1.2017 by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.3.2018, the learned trial Court again framed issues while under