Jaspreet Kaur And Another vs Jagtar Singh And Others on 14 August, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jaspreet Kaur And Another vs Jagtar Singh And Others on 14 August, 2012

Bench: A.N. Jindal

Civil Revision No. 4685 of 2012                      1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH.


                 Civil Revision No. 4685 of 2012
                 Date of decision:- 14.08.2012




Jaspreet Kaur and another

                                         ....Petitioners

           Vs.


Jagtar Singh and others

                                         ....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
                ******

Present:- Mr. K.S. Brar, Advocate,
          for of the petitioners.


A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL)

This petition assails the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda, dismissing the application filed by the plaintiffs-petitioners (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioners') for framing additional issue regarding the Will dated 11.08.2008 executed by Shri Jagroop Singh in favour of defendant No.2.

On perusal of the issues framed by the trial Court on 14.01.2012, it transpires that issue No.1 is a general issue. Actually, the Courts are bound to frame all the issues arising between the parties. The prime object of framing the issues is to apprise the parties, what is the real lis between them and what Civil Revision No. 4685 of 2012 2 would be scope of the evidence to be led by them. The main lis between the parties, as per pleadings, is that; 'whether Jagroop Singh had executed a Will dated 11.08.2008 in favour of the defendants. But, no such issue has been framed by the trial Court. It is also well settled that the issues should be very clear, specific and categoric. If there has been the instruction of the legislature that the issue of declaration or injunction would cover all the issues, then there was no need to impose requirement to frame all the issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and only one issue of "relief' could cover all the issues. While elaborating the requirement of framing of the issues arising out of the pleadings made by the parties, this Court in case Smt. Shanti Vs. Tarawati and others, 1997 (1) RCR (Civil) 615, has observed as under:-

"5. So far as No.4-D is concerned, in the original written statement there is a specific plea that the suit is filed in collusion with defendant No.3. At that time no such issue was framed, but when appellate Court was framing additional issues under the directions of this Court, after the amendment was made by the defendants in their written statement, it has framed issue No.4-D. Under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC the Court has jurisdiction to frame issues at any point of time. Secondly, it is too much to argue that under the orders of this Court only those issues were required to be framed which arose from the amended pleas. If in the original written statement, there was a specific plea and if no issue was framed by the trial Court, the appellate Court was not debarred from framing that additional issue. On this premise the objections raised by the plaintiff- petitioner's learned counsel are devoid of any substance....."

I need not delve deep into the matter regarding framing the issues as the Court is the best judge to examine the same.

Civil Revision No. 4685 of 2012 3

As such, this petition is dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to re-examine, as per the observations made above, if any issue is required to be framed or not.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.




                                              (A.N.JINDAL)
August 14, 2012                                 JUDGE
ajp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court