The court ruled that while Order 14 Rule 5 CPC allows framing additional issues at any stage, this power cannot be used to shift the burden of proof in declaratory suits or to permit parties to fill evidence lacunae after their evidence has been validly closed for non-diligence.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 seeking setting aside of the order dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P-10) passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana; whereby application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for reframing of issues, has been partly allowed and additional issue has been framed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that despite grant of numerous opportunities, plaintiffs/respondents had failed to lead any evidence. Consequentially, their evidence was closed by order vide order dated 17.11.2025, which order has attained finality. Now after evidence of the petitioner was also closed in affirmative, plaintiffs’ want to stand on the petitioner’s legs. It is contended that vide the present application, plaintiffs only want to fill the lacunae in their case. It is submitted that if the impugned order is sustained, and application of the plaintiff for reframing of issue is allowed, the same would amount to denovo trial which is already at the stage of final arguments.

3. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be allowed; and the impugned order be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/plaintiffs vehemently submits that the Will dated 16.06.2009 has been propounded by the petitioner. As such, it is for the petitioner to prove the said Will. The onus to prove the said Will, cannot be put upon the respondents/plaintiffs. No doubt, it is the contention of the respondents that Will is fraud. So, the respondents are only called upon to prove the fraud. However, the onus to prove the Will itself, is upon the petitioner. It is submitted that even under Sections 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the Will, being propounder of the Will. It is submitted that it is for this reason that the 2002 Amendment was brought in, whereby under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC vast power is granted for framing of additional issue “at any stage”.

5. In support, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs refers to the judgment passed by this Court in Damanpreet Singh v. Jaspal Singh, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2069342; wherein it is held as under:-

“Will - Decree sought on the ground that will is forged - Trial Court rightly called upon defendant to prove the Will, at the first instance.”

The relevant paras of the said judgment are as under:-

“5. It is well settled that the propounder of the testamentary disposition is required not only to prove the Will but also required to furnish explanation in respect of all the surrounding suspicious circumstances. The onus is on the propounder to prove that the Will was executed in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and also to prove the Will in accordance with section 68, 69 and 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

6. Moreover, the onus to prove a particular fact lies upon the party who affirms such fact and wishes the Court to believe in its existence and not upon the party who denies such fact. On a careful perusal of the issues, it is evident that the primary onus to prove the Will is on the defendant No.1 to 3. The remaining issues are only formal in nature. In fact, the remaining issues are based either upon the prayer made in the suit or the preliminary objections taken by the defendants while filing their respective written statements.”

6.