This revision petition challenged the rejection of an application to frame additional issues in a suit for declaration and injunction. The High Court upheld the trial Court's decision, holding that the onus to prove coercion lay on the plaintiff as asserted in the plaint.
Application for framing additional issues was dismissed; revision petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.No.5602 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH.
C.R.No.5602 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.9.2010
Bachan Singh
...Petitioner
vs
Puran Singh and others
....Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG.
Present: Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral)
This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 9.8.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division),Batala whereby prayer of the petitioner for framing additional issue has been rejected.
The petitioner filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 27.5.1999 executed by him in favour of defendant No.3 was illegal, unlawful, inoperative and not binding upon his rights, as the same was result of force and coercion, and for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff from the suit land.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court on 1.8.2000:-
1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of land in
C.R.No.5602 of 2010
2
dispute ?OPP
2.If issue No.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration for the reasons mentioned in the plaint ?OPP
3.Whether sale deed dated 27.5.1999 in favour of defendant No.3 as well as mutation No.1136 in favour of defendant No.3, is illegal, null and void, inoperative and inoperative and ineffective and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff ?OPP 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction on the strength of his possession ?OPP
A perusal of the aforesaid issues shows that issue No.3 was framed specifically on the basis of the assertions made by the plaintiff in the suit regarding the sale deed in question and the onus was rightly placed upon him to prove the same.
In spite of the fact that the issues were framed, as aforesaid, in the suit on 1.8.2000 i.e. ten years back, yet admittedly the petitioner has not completed his evidence so far. When the last opportunity was granted to him to complete the evidence, the present application for framing of additional issues to the following effect was filed:-
The aforesaid application was filed for framing additional issues on the ground that it was for the defendants to prove the plea taken by them in the written statement that the agreement to sell in question was
C.R.No.5602 of 2010
3
executed by the plaintiff for a legal and valid consideration and with his free will and consent, and the onus should have been placed on the defendant-respondents.
The aforesaid application has been rejected by the trial Court vide the impugned order observing that issue no.3 as framed on 1.8.2000, as noticed above, has already been framed and the onus was rightly placed on the plaintiff-petitioner as it is the petitioner who had come to the Court with the assertion that the agreement to sell in question is the result of force and coercion in question.
I find no fault in the reasoning adopted by the trial Court.
Dismissed.
( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge
September 1, 2010 rk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's order rejecting the prayer for framing additional issues.
Whether the onus to prove that the sale deed was executed by force and coercion lies on the plaintiff.
Whether the trial Court correctly held that the assertion regarding force and coercion was properly placed on the plaintiff.
Bachan Singh
Puran Singh
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
