Swaran Singh and Others vs Balwinder Singh and Others

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.—A suit for declaration that the petitioners-plaintiffs are owners in possession of 1/6th share of land measuring 33 Kanals 2 Marlas, as detailed in the plaint [Annexure P/1] is pending adjudication before the Civil Judge [Junior Division], Batala. Both the parties have already concluded their evidence and case is at the stage of final adjudication. An application moved by the defendants, petitioners herein, for recasting of issues was dismissed on 30.7.2014 [Annexure P/9]. Undaunted by such dismissal, fresh application [Annexure P/10] was moved by the petitioners-defendants with the same prayer, which application again was dismissed vide order dated 8.9.2014 [Annexure P/11]. Impugning these orders, Annexures P/9 and P/11, it is claimed that material issues somehow were omitted to be framed. 15 issues have been proposed. Earlier issues framed by the Court below on 19.9.2013 are as under:-

"1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration? OPP

Whether Gurbachan Kaur is not Class-I, legal heir of Mangal Singh? OPP

Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

Relief."

Proposed issues are as under:-

I). Whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP

II). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP

III). Whether the plaintiff in the alternative are entitled to the relief of joint possession as prayed for? OPP

IV). Whether Chanan Singh executed a registered Will dated 17.6.98 in favour of Rattan Singh as alleged? OPP

V). Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD

VI). Whether Gurbachan Kaur inherited 1/6 share from the estate of Mangal Singh being his daughter as alleged? OPD

VII). If issue No. 6 above is proved, whether the defendants No. 1 to 3, inherited the said 1/6 share of Gurbachan Kaur as alleged? OPD

VIII). Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

IX). Whether the suit is hopelessly time barred? OPD

X). Whether there was a decree dated 7.10.1986 passed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3 against Chanan Singh etc. by the Court of Sub Judge II Class, Batala as alleged, if so, its effect? OPD

XI). Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present case? OPD

XII). Whether the defendants No. 1 to 3, effected any transfer of land in favour of the defendant No. 4, if so, its effect? OPD

XIII). Whether the defendant No. 4, is a bonafide purchaser for value and without notice? OPD4

XIV). Whether the defendant No. 4 has become owner by way of adverse possession as alleged? OPD 4

XV). Relief."

From the perusal of the earlier issues, it transpires that issue No. 1 is all pervasive and wholesome issue. Similarly, relationship of Smt. Gurbachan Kaur qua deceased Mangal Singh is yet another issue i.e. issue No. 2 which completely reflects the bone of contention between the parties. It is important to notice that there is no counter claim by the defendants. In these circumstances, no relief by adjudication is to be provided to the defendants hence most of the proposed issues are beyond the scope of adjudication. Some are even beyond pleadings. No relevant aspect of the pleadings is outside the scope of issues which are already there.

In both the impugned orders, the lower Court has very deftly dealt with the matter in dispute and has rightly come to a conclusion that the application of the defendants for recasting and reframing of additional issues had no merit. Referring to Rameshwari Devi and Others Vs. Nirmala Devi and Others, , learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that framing of issues is a very important stage in the civil litigation and it is the bounden duty of the Court that due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the learned Presiding Judge while framing of issues. Seeking support from Hari Chand Vs. Krishan Kumar, and Rajinder Tandon v. Thomas Nasir Masih, 1991(1) R.C.R. [Civil] 539, it is urged that additional issues can be framed at any stage of the suit.

There is no dispute about the law. However, when the request for recasting and reframing of the issues is neither warranted nor merited in the given circumstances and in the interface of the pleadings of the parties and when issues covering the rival claims of the parties are already there, the Court has rightly not fallen prey to the nuances of the petitioners-defendants of a prayer to recast the issues, so that they may prolong it farther by seeking opportunity to produce evidence.

Looking from another angle, when the parties have already under gone the trial and have led their elaborate evidence knowing their rival claims well, even if issues are not there at all, no prejudice is going to be caused to the parties and the Court can answer their rival claims even otherwise on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record. In view of the above, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed.