IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (111 Date of Decision:10.03.2026 HARBHAJAN SINGH … Petitioner Versus GURBACHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present:- Mr. Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.B.S. Randhawa, Advocate for respondent No.1.

****

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been instituted by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the order dated 12.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner–plaintiff seeking framing of additional issues came to be dismissed.

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the petitioner–plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, asserting himself to be the owner in possession of the suit land, along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the alleged joint possession of the plaintiff, dispossessing him from the suit property, or otherwise alienating the same. In the alternative, the plaintiff also sought the relief of joint possession. It was further pleaded that any exchange deed, if alleged or relied upon by the defendants, is illegal, null and void, ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff, and the result of fraud and conspiracy.

2.1. Defendant–respondent No.1, upon appearance, filed his written statement asserting that he had become owner in possession of the suit land measuring 15 kanals 12 marlas on the basis of an exchange effected with the plaintiff, and that Mutation No.3724 had been duly sanctioned on the basis of such exchange.

2.2. The learned Trial Court, after considering the pleadings of the parties, framed issues vide order dated 27.05.2025. Thereafter, the plaintiff–petitioner moved an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”), seeking framing of additional issues, inter alia, on the ground that the defendants had taken a specific plea of having become owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of an alleged exchange with the plaintiff. The said plea having been categorically denied by the plaintiff, it was contended that no specific issue had been framed with respect thereto, and that for the proper and effective adjudication of the controversy, issues regarding the defendants’ claim of ownership by way of exchange and the alleged exchange being illegal, null and void, inoperative, and vitiated by fraud were required to be framed.

3. The defendants opposed the said application and, by way of reply, asserted that the issues already framed by the learned Trial Court sufficiently encompassed the controversy between the parties, including the question relating to the plaintiff’s claim of ownership and possession as well as the plea regarding the alleged exchange between the parties. Upon hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has instituted the present revision petition. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. However, no one appeared on behalf of respondent No.2, whereas respondent No.1 was represented through counsel, Mr. B.B.S.

Randhawa, Advocate.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and have carefully perused the paper-book and the material placed on record.

6. The learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application by recording findings in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order. At this stage, it would be apposite to note that the provisions of Order XIV Rule 1 CPC stipulate that issues are required to be framed upon material propositions of fact or law which are affirmed by one party and denied by the other.

The relevant provisions of Order XIV Rule 1 CPC read as under:-

“ORDER XIV Settlement of Issues and Determination of