SURINDER SINGH Vs. KULDEEP SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff is to the order dated 8.7.2015 passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by him under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing additional issue was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had filed a suit on 22.12.2011 for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 5.2.2003. In the written statement filed by the defendants; the specific stand taken was that the alleged agreement to sell dated 5.2.2003 and endorsement dated 4.2.2004 are forged and fabricated by the plaintiff in connivance with the alleged stamp vendor, deed writer and the witnesses. Despite the stand being taken in the written statement filed by the defendants, at the time of framing of issues on 29.2.2012, the learned court below failed to frame any issue regarding that. Onus of which would have been on the defendants. Referring to Order 14 Rules 1, 3 & 5 CPC, it is submitted that the issues are to be framed either on fact or law and have to be on the basis of pleadings of the parties. It is further submitted that the court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issue on such terms, as it may think fit. Object is to determine the controversy in the matter. As in the case in hand, the issue regarding agreement to sell being forged and fabricated document, was required to be framed in terms of the pleadings of the defendants, the same having not been framed, deserves to be framed. The case is now at the stage of rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition.