The trial court possesses the authority under the procedural code to frame or amend issues at any stage before the final decree to ensure all matters in controversy are adjudicated. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court is limited and should be exercised with judicial discipline.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J.

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Phul, District Bathinda, vide which the trial Court has framed issue no.8(A) with respect to Wills dated 25.10.2007 and 10.07.1996.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application had been filed by the plaintiffs for examination of handwriting expert and at that stage, the trial Court suo-moto framed the additional issue regarding the Wills dated 25.10.2007 and 10.07.1996. It is submitted that the trial has made much progress and thus, the framing of the additional issue would unnecessarily delay the proceedings and would also result in denovo trial.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

4. Respondents no.1 and 2-plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs and defendant no.3 are owners in possession of the suit land. In the prayer clause itself, it was specifically stated that defendants no.1 and 2 have no concern with the suit land and mutations no.5405 and 5406 dated 30.12.2015 sanctioned in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 on the basis of unregistered Will dated 25.10.2007 and 10.07.1996 by the A.C. Ist Grade, Maur, vide its order dated 30.12.2015 are illegal and liable to be set aside. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, it was specifically pleaded that the deceased Maghar Singh and Jang Singh in connivance with each other and also the witnesses prepared two Wills, out of which one was got executed on 25.10.2007 from Mukhtiar Singh in favour of Gurmeet Kaur wife of Maghar Singh and likewise Jang Singh had got prepared the Will dated 10.07.1996 which was executed from Kartar Singh in favour of Surjit Kaur wife of Jang Singh and that the said Wills are null and void to the extent of right of the plaintiffs. The relevant portion of the head note as well as the averments made in the plaint with respect to the said Wills is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 are owners in possession Schedule (A) of land measuring 273 Kanal 19 Marla bearing Khewat No.115/98, Khatoni No.307 to 316 comprised in Khasra No.400 (0-3), 523/2/1/1/1/2/2 (9-2), 1074/26 (0-6), 1088/78/2 (1- 8), 411min (8-0), 479/2 (5-0), 482/2 (1-19), 582 (18-0), 409/2 (17-10), 410 (16-11), 411min (2-0), 522/2min (1-4), 522/2/1 (4-16), 540/1/1/1 (0-18), 579min (5-0), 580/1/1 (15-0), 582min (4-10), 479/2min (8-18), 481min (1- 10), 482min (6-0), 483 (4-14), 488/1 (8-12), 578 (30-8), 579 (3-9), 588/1/1 (0-15), 480/2/2 (1-11), 489/1/2 (0-7), 521/1/2/2 (4-17), 522/1/2/2/2 (3-10), 583/2 (10-4), 586/3 (15-7), 481min (12-5), 482/2min (14-8), 521/1/1 (4- 13), 521/1/2/1 (1-11), 522/1/2/1min (4-8), 522/1/2/2/1 (1-2), 523/2/1/1/1/2/1 (0-10), 482/1 (2-13), 489/1/1 (8-5), 582/1/2 (2-3), 490/1 (2-12), 583/1 (8-0);

OR

Schedule (B) of land measuring 51 Kanal 18 Marla bearing Khewat No.116/99/0, Khatoni No.318 to 322 comprised in Kharas No.408/1/1 (2- 9), 408/2/1min (2-0), 408/1/5 (1-12), 589/3/1/1 (4-5), 589/3/2 (3-10), 589/3/3 (2-0), 589/4/2 (1-7), 591/1/1 (3-10), 591/1/2/1 (2-16), 591/1/3/1 (0-4), 408/1/2/1 (3-0), 408/1/2/1/2 (5-10), 409/1 (5-6), 480/2/1 (5-0), 587/1/1 (4-17), 589/3/1/2 (4-12) situated at village Dhade, Sub Tehsil Ballianwali, District Bathinda as per J