IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7468-2025 DECIDED ON: 29.10.2025 INDER SAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THR. LRS. AND ORS.

.....PETITIONERS VERSUS RAM BHAGWAN AND ORS.

.....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Ms. Rahish Pahwa, Advocate and Mr. Saksham Dudeja, Advocate for the petitioners.

MANDEEP PANNU, J (ORAL)

1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners–defendants No.3 to 6 seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby their application under Section

151 CPC for framing of additional issues has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that respondent No.1–plaintiff instituted a civil suit titled as ‘Ram Bhagwan versus Kuldip Singh and others’ seeking a decree for separate possession by way of partition by metes and bounds and for permanent injunction, claiming himself to be a co- sharer with the defendants in the joint property descending from a common ancestor. The petitioners–defendants entered appearance and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, valuation, court fee, ouster, and partial partition, besides contesting the claim on merits.

3. Upon completion of pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for adjudication:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of separate possession by way of partition by metes and bounds, as prayed for? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?

OPD

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time? OPD

5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

6. Relief.

4. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence. Both sides led oral and documentary evidence, and the case was listed for final arguments on 04.08.2025. At that stage, the petitioners–defendant Nos.3 to 6 noticed that certain preliminary objections taken in their written statement had not been reflected in the framed issues. Accordingly, they moved an application dated 26.08.2025 under Section 151 CPC praying for framing of additional issues, to which the plaintiff–respondent filed a reply dated 04.09.2025.

5. In the said application, the petitioners prayed for framing of the following additional issues:

6. Whether the suit is for partial partition, if so, its effect?

OPD

7. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of ouster?

OPD

8. Whether the suit is not properly valued and proper court fee is not paid? OPD

9. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for not paying proper court fee as per the market value of the property? OPD

10. Relief.

6. The learned Trial Court, after hearing counsel for both sides, dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 25.09.2025, holding that the pleas raised by the defendants in the proposed additional issues already fall within the ambit of Issue No.3 relating to maintainability of the suit. The Court further observed that all such legal objections, partial partition, ouster, valuation, sufficiency of court fee and rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, go to the root of maintainability and can conveniently be adjudicated under the existing issue. Accordingly, the learned Court held that framing separate issues on the same objections would not add clarity and might only multiply the issues. The Court, however, clarified that the defendants shall have full opportunity to advance arguments on all such pleas at the stage of final hearing, and consequently, the application was dismissed.

7. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court contending that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the matter in its proper perspective. It is urged that each of the proposed additional issues raises a distinct and specific question of law and fact which cannot