##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

119 CR-8099-2025

Date of Decision.:03.02.2026

Naresh Kumar and Another …..Pe//oners

Vs.

Devinder Singh and Another .….Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate

for the petitioners.

Mr. Nikhil Chopra, Advocate

for the respondents.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Power of a(cid:31)orney on behalf of the respondents has been filed

and taken on record.

2. The petitioners herein are plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.1454 of

2019 titled Naresh Kumar and another v. Devinder Singh and another,

pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Fatehgarh Sahib. They have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court

assailing order dated 25.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby their application

under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of additional issues has been

dismissed.

3. The petitioners instituted the suit for specific performance on

the basis of an agreement to sell dated 04.12.2015, claiming the suit to be

within limitation. The defendants-respondents contested the suit by

alleging that the agreement was the result of fraud and misrepresentation

and further pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. A;er

NEETIKA TUTEJA

2026.02.04 14:18

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-8099-2025 -2-

completion of pleadings, issues were framed on 28.10.2021 and the case

proceeded for plaintiffs’ evidence.

4. During the course of evidence, the petitioners moved an

application under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC seeking framing of additional

issues, primarily on the grounds that no specific issue had been framed as

to whether the agreement to sell was the result of fraud and

misrepresentation, and that no issue relating to limitation had been

framed.

5. The learned Trial Court declined the said application, noticing

that a;er se(cid:31)lement of issues, the plaintiffs had availed multiple

opportunities spanning nearly 40 dates to lead their evidence and had

raised the objection regarding framing of additional issues at a belated

stage.

6. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the respondents

pointed out that it was the petitioners themselves who were responsible

for delay in the proceedings. It was highlighted that they had earlier moved

an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint,

which was dismissed by the Trial Court on 08.01.2025. The said order was

assailed before this Court in CR No.455 of 2025, which was dismissed on

01.07.2025, and only therea;er the present application for framing of

additional issues was moved.

7. During the course of hearing, when it was put to learned

counsel for the petitioners that Issue No.1, relating to execution of the

agreement to sell, would necessarily encompass the plea of fraud and

misrepresentation, and that at the time of framing of issues on 28.10.2021

neither party had pressed for framing of any additional issue, learned

counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, made a statement seeking

permission to withdraw the present revision petition with liberty to lead

evidence on all the issues already framed.

NEETIKA TUTEJA

2026.02.04 14:18

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR-8099-2025 -3-

8. In view of the aforesaid statement and keeping in view that

the case is already at the stage of plaintiffs’ evidence, the present revision

petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to lead

evidence in support of their pleadings within the framework of the issues

already framed.

9. It is, however, clarified that the question as to whether the

petitioners would be entitled to lead evidence in rebu(cid:31)al shall depend

upon the nature of the issue and whether the onus to prove the same lies

upon the defendants-respondents. The said aspect shall be considered by

the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage, in accordance with law.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands

disposed of.

(DEEPAK GUPTA)

JUDGE

February 03, 2026

Neetika