Sukhdev Singh vs Jaswinder Singh

G.S. Singhvi, J.—In a suit which was filed by the defendants-respondents as early as in the year 1990 and in which issues were framed on 10.8.1991 and additional issues were framed on 28.9.1993, the learned trial Court has rejected a second application filed by the petitioners for framing of additional issues under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The respondents have filed a suit for declaration of nullity qua the sale deed dated 26.12.1988 alleged to have been executed by Veer Singh (respondent No. 4) in favour of the petitioners.

The plaintiffs-respondents have alleged that the sale deed was executed just after one month of the passing of the decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against Veer Singh and this sale deed was executed only to deprive the plaintiffs of the fruits of the decree. Learned trial Court framed five issues and on an application filed under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court framed two additional issues. After the parties led their evidence, the petitioners filed an application for framing of two additional issues regarding nature of the property and also on the controversy whether family partition had taken place between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 and the land measuring 150 kanals and 18 marlas fell to the share of the plaintiffs. After considering the rival contentions, the learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the same is not bona fide.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issues regarding the nature of the property and the family partition are necessary in order to comprehensively decide the controversy between the parties. He submitted that by refusing to frame the additional issues, the learned trial Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vesting in it and, therefore, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

After having thoughtfully considered the matter, I am of the opinion that the revision petition is wholly without merit and, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed.

A look at the order of the trial Court shows that the suit filed by the plaintiffs respondents is simply for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant-Veer Singh in favour of the petitioners is valid or not. Their claim is based on the decree passed in their favour and against Veer Singh. In my opinion, the framing of an issue about the nature of the property and the family partition is not at all necessary for the purpose of just decision of the claim made by the plaintiffs-respondents.'' Moreover, no failure of justice has been occasioned by the impugned order and the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the application for framing of additional issues has been filed with oblique motive of delaying the proceedings of the suit.

For the reasons mentioned above, the revision petition is dismissed.