Chanan Singh v. Sudarshan Kumar & Anr.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mrs. , Vanita Sapra Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate, the respondents. A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral) The order dated 5.3.2011, vide which two applications of the petitioner, one for recasting of issues and the other for production of original documents were dismissed, is under challenge. The plaintiff/petitioner had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is co-owner of the land measuring 7 kanal 4 marla and in exclusive possession of the same and the sale deed dated 27.11.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 being without right or authority is null and void and is liable to be ignored. The defendants have refuted all the allegations and further claimed that defendant No.2 is bonafide purchaser for consideration of the land in dispute without notice. Thus, from the pleadings of the parties the court omitted to frame the following issues:- “Whether the plaintiff is co-owner in exclusive possession of CR No.

3397 of 2011 2 Khata No. 126/194, Khasra No. 22//18/7-4 and the sale deed dated 27.11.2007 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void and without authority and the same has been obtained by tampering with the revenue record with the collusion of revenue officials?” However, both the parties do not dispute framing of proposed issue No. 8, in place of issue No. 8, as proposed by the petitioner, in addition to other issues. Similarly, the parties do not dispute if issue No. 7, as proposed by the plaintiff with regard to the question of bonafide purchaser, is framed. It is also not disputed that onus of issue No. 7 and 8 would remain upon defendants and the plaintiff respectively. On examination of the application filed by the petitioner, it transpires that there is no requirement of framing of issues No. 6, 9 and 10. As regards, proposed issue No.3, such issue need not be framed when there is already issue No.