Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Ravi Kishore Mittal @ Ravi Mittal – Appellant
Versus
Hari Singh through his LRs. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case facts, procedural history, and existing framework. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding the necessity for additional issues. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. duty of court to frame specific issues per order xiv. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. order setting aside trial court order and directing re-framing of issues. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J.
1. The present revision petition has been instituted by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the order dated 20.02.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby the application preferred by the petitioners–plaintiffs seeking framing of additional issues has been dismissed.
2. The factual background, in brief, is that the petitioners– plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, asserting themselves to be the bona fide purchasers for consideration of the suit property, bearing House No. 246-A, Model Town, Ludhiana, vide registered Sale Deed dated 22.02.2008. It was pleaded that the petitioners were in actual and physical posses
Trial courts are mandated to frame specific issues based on material propositions of fact and law asserted in pleadings. General issues covering broad reliefs are insufficient; failure to frame speci....
Existing legal issues sufficiently addressed the matter in controversy, making the request for additional issues unnecessary and delaying proceedings.
Omission to frame an issue would not vitiate the trial if the parties were aware of the issue and led evidence on it.
The court emphasized the necessity of framing appropriate issues under the CPC to ensure a fair trial in cases of specific performance and possession claims.
A court can deny amendment requests under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC if due diligence is lacking after trial commencement.
High Court can set aside or ignore findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly ....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the necessity of an amendment for determining the real controversy in the suit, and the need to exercise discretion judiciously and with great care.....
Under Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 of CPC, it is mandatory for the trial court to frame all issues arising in the suit before considering preliminary 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
