This is an oral judgment where the Punjabi & Haryana High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by plaintiffs against a trial court order refusing to frame additional issues in a suit for recovery, holding no ground to interfere as the issues were covered by already framed ones.
The present revision petition stands 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.
107
CR 515/2015(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision:04.02.2015.
Sai Traders and another
.............Petitioners
v.
National Industries and others
.............Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:Mr.Manu Loona,Advocate for the petitioners
Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral)
Plaintiffs are in revision aggrieved by the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)Faridkot whereby their application for framing additional issues in respect of stand of the defendants, has been dismissed.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery against defendant-firm as also its partners for a sum of Rs.14 lacs alongwith interest, which is pleaded to have been taken by way of loan, The amount is stated to have been paid by cheques. Defendants admitted to have received a payment of Rs.14 lacs but pleaded that plaintiff no.2 had joined the business of defendant firm as partner and the said amount was paid as capital investment which is apparent from the writing dated 3.9.2009 executed by the parties. The said writing has been denied by theRAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.02.04 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
107
CR 515/2015(O&M) 2
plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, trial court inter alia framed issues i.e. (i) whether plaintiff no.2 joined firm as partner and executed writing and (ii) whether plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of Rs.21,56,000/- inclusive of interest, as prayed for? OPP. After the issues had been framed on 3.10.2013, plaintiffs moved an application dated 19.2.2014 (P-4) seeking to raise the following additional issues:-
“(i)Whether the plaintiff no.2 joined the defendant firm as partner and executed writing dated 03.09.2009?OPD
(ii)Whether plaintiff no.2 agreed to pay Rs.14 lacs as capital investment in the defendant firm?OPD
(iii) Whether the sum of Rs.14 lacs was adjusted against the amount of Theka, interest and losses suffered by defendant firm?OPD.”
The learned trial Court, as is apparent from the impugned order has recorded its satisfaction that the aforesaid issues, as per pleadings in the written statement are to be proved by defendants, are covered under issue no.1 and therefore the said issues being being actually matter of evidence are not required to be framed. The satisfaction recorded by the trial Court in the opinion of this Court does not appear to be perverse or suffering from any jurisdictional error.
In view of the above, present revision petition stands
dismissed.
04.02.2015 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge
RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2015.02.04 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court, Chandigarh.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the revision petition against the trial court's order refusing to frame additional issues in a civil suit.
Whether the refusal to frame additional issues which were already covered by existing issues constituted a jurisdictional error or perversity.
Whether there was any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.11.2014.
Sai Traders and another
National Industries and others
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
