UMESH SHARMA Vs. RANJANA SOOD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present application is filed under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for framing of additional issue. Brief facts of the case as pleaded are that plaintiff Umesh Sharma filed civil suit No. 58 of 2006 against Smt. Ranjana Sood for specific performance of contract dated 23.9.2006 and also sought consequential relief of possession of suit property comprised in khata/ khatauni No.36 min/164 khasra No.2488/15/2 min (old) and khasra No.3 (new) measuring 2472-38 Sq.metres situated in mauza Vikasnagar District Shimla HP and thereafter Ajay Sood son of Jagdish Lal Sood was also impleaded as co-defendant No.2 in civil suit No. 58 of 2006. Co-defendant No.2 Sh Ajay Sood also filed separate civil suit No.76 of 2007 against co-defendants Smt. Ranjana Sood and Lalit Kumar Sood and proforma defendant Umesh Sharma for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.9.2006 relating to immovable property comprised in khata No. 36/35 min khatauni No.164, 165, 166 and 167 khasra Nos 3,5,6 and 20 (old khasra No.2488/155/2) measuring 2988.40 Sq metres mauza Vikasnagar Tehsil and District Shimla HP. It is proved on record that both suits i.e. civil suit No.58 of 2006 and civil suit No. 76 of 2007 were clubbed together by Hon'ble High Court of HP vide order dated 4.11.2011 while disposing of OMP No.216 of 2011 filed in civil suit No. 76 of 2007. During the pendency of civil suit No.58 of 2006 present OMP No.437 of 2014 filed by applicant Umesh Sharma under order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for framing of additional issue. It is pleaded that civil suit No. 58 of 2006 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale of immovable property dated 23.9.2006 and consequential relief of possession. It is further pleaded that during the course of trial co-defendant No.2 was added as party and co-defendant No.2 Ajay Sood also filed separate civil suit No.76 of 2007 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 21.9.2006 in respect of suit property against applicant Umesh Sharma. It is further pleaded that at the time of framing of issue material proposed issue i.e. issue No.9A was not framed by the Court which is quoted as under:

(2.) Per contra reply filed on behalf of nonapplicants/defendants pleaded therein that present application has been filed by applicant Umesh Sharma with malafide intention just to delay the trial of the case. It is further pleaded that civil suit No. 58 of 2006 titled Umesh Sharma Vs. Ranjana Sood and others and civil suit No. 76 of 2007 titled Ajay Sood Vs. Ranjana Sood and others were consolidated by the Court. It is further pleaded that proposed issue already stood covered in the issues already framed by the Court. It is further pleaded that parties have led entire evidence and at this stage no additional issue is required to be framed by the Court. It is further pleaded that applicant intents to reopen the entire case in affirmative and prayer for dismissal of application sought.

(3.) Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-applicants/defendants and also perused entire records carefully.