Amar Singh vs Badlu Ram and others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff No. 1 Amar Singh has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition to assail order dated 16.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rewari, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-2 moved by plaintiffs (petitioner and proforma respondents No. 3 to 8) for framing of additional issue.

Plaintiffs have filed suit against respondents No. 1 and 2/defendants basing their claim on disputed passage depicted by plaintiffs in their site plan. Defendants, however, denied the existence of the said passage and pleaded existence of another passage on southern and eastern sides for access to property of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought framing of additional issue regarding the said other passage pleaded by defendants.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that since defendants have pleaded the existence of alternate passage, issue regarding the same is required to be framed. The contention, on first blush appears to be meritorious, but on proper scrutiny, the contention is found to be bereft of any merit. Existence or non-existence of alternate passage pleaded by the defendants would not change the fate of the suit either way, and therefore, proposed additional issue is not required to be framed. The plaintiffs in the suit would succeed if they prove the existence of the disputed passage pleaded by them, irrespective of whether the alternate passage exists or does not exist. Conversely, plaintiffs'' suit would be dismissed if they fail to prove the existence of the disputed passage, irrespective of existence or non-existence of the alternate passage pleaded by the defendants. In this view of the matter, additional issue sought by the plaintiffs is not required to be framed because the same would have no bearing on final result of the suit.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition. Impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.