SURINDER PAL Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.03.2016, passed by the trial court, whereby application moved by the petitioner for framing additional issue has been rejected.

(2.) Mr. Chadha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued before the court that the trial court erred in not framing any issue regarding the codicil relied upon by the plaintiff, thus, no evidence could be led regarding the same. Instant application was moved for framing additional issue. Same has been erroneously rejected by the court below. He has placed reliance on judgments reported as Chebrol Sriramalu v. Vakalapudi Satyanarayana, 2013 (9) SCC 404 and Nazar Singh v. Satnam Singh and others, 2015 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 51 in support of the contention that additional issue can be framed at any stage of the proceedings. Same could not have been rejected only on the ground that there was delay in moving the application.

(3.) Prayer was opposed by counsel appearing for respondent No.1. He stated that no codicil was ever executed by Amar Nath. The instant application has been moved at a stage when suit is at the stage of culmination. Plaintiff could easily have led evidence in support of the document now sought to be produced, as same would fall within the ambit of issue No.1. Defendant/petitioner is merely trying to delay the proceedings as he is in possession of the property. He has relied upon judgments reported as Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, 1963 AIR (SC) 884 and Kannan (dead) by Lrs and others v. V.S. Pandurangam (dead) by Lrs & others.