AMARJIT KAUR Vs. JASWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 12/9/2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, as per which the petitioners-plaintiffs have been barred from leading further evidence, even though additional issues have been framed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration claiming joint ownership and possession on the basis of a Will dtd. 6/12/1991 stated to have been executed by Raghbir Singh in their favour. It is submitted that in the written statement the said Will was disputed and in spite of the same, the trial Court did not frame a specific issue with respect to the said Will. It is submitted that subsequently the petitioners moved an application for framing of the additional issues with respect to the said Will as well as with respect to the challenge to the Mutation No.2221 which was entered without considering the validity of the said Will and the said application for framing of additional issues was allowed yet the trial Court, without any valid reason, did not permit the petitioners to lead evidence on the said additional issues framed. It is submitted that it is a matter of settled law that framing of issues is the duty of the Court and on every material aspect, the issues are required to be framed, which has not been done in the present case. It is further submitted that it is also a matter of settled law that whenever an amendment or addition in the issues is made, fresh opportunity is to be given to the parties to lead further evidence. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Satnam Singh Sharma Versus Tarloki Nath Kalia and others reported as 1974 PLR 374.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that in the present case, the said application was moved after much delay and after the evidence had already been led and thus, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the parties should not be permitted to lead any further evidence as leading further evidence would further delay the proceedings. It is submitted that in case the petitioners are granted an opportunity to lead evidence, then equal opportunity should also be granted to respondent No.2 to lead evidence with respect to the additional issues and for the delay in moving the application, the petitioners should be burdened with heavy cost.