CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Hari Chand vs Krishan Kumar

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 27 March 1998 · Citation: (1999) 3 CivCC 67 : (1998) 3 CivCC 37 : (1998) 119 PLR 309 : (1998) 3 RCR(Civil) 186

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 14 Rule 5, 115
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision No. 1168 of 1998
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 382 words

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This revision petition is filed against the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra in civil suit No. 1046 of 1997 dated 16.3.1998.

2.

The plaintiff filed an application to frame an additional issue namely "whether the entries in the Jamabandi qua suit land being illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff ?". This application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that issue No. 1 covers the additional issue sought to be framed and that the plaintiff has already led his evidence qua his possession. Issue No. 1 is to the effect "whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as tenant?". The issue which the plaintiff now wanted to be framed is in regard to the entries in the jamabandis. If the entries in the Jamabandis are not to be held illegal and not binding then presumably a rebuttable presumption may be drawn in view of the entries in the Jamabandis in regard to possession. Therefore, I do not think that issue No. 1 covers the question whether the Jamabandi entries are illegal, null and void. This is to be decided separately. Prima facie the entries in the revenue record show the possession of the parties in whose names the entries have been made. I am also not in a position to agree with the learned Civil Judge that this issue cannot be framed since the plaintiff has already led his evidence. Under Order 14 an issue can be framed at any time before passing of the decree. The application to frame an additional issue which arises on the basis of the pleadings cannot be disallowed on the ground that the plaintiff has already let in evidence. Rule 5 of Order 14 is clear that the issue can be framed at any time before the passing of the decree.

3.

In this view of the matter, I allow the revision petition and direct the trial Court to frame the issue as sought for but the plaintiff will not be entitled to lead any evidence at this stage. However, it is open to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal after the closure of the evidence of the defendants.

4.

Subject to the above observations, this revision petition is allowed.