Parkash v. deceased) through LRs Rajbir
Case Details
CR-6672-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -1- - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR CR-6672-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 19.09.2025 Decided on : Parkash ....Petitioner VERSUS deceased) through LRs Rajbir (since deceased) through LRs ....Respondent
Legal Reasoning
MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner , Advocate for the petitioner. MANDEEP PANNU J. MANDEEP PANNU -.- 1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of petitioner assailing the order dated India has been filed by the defendant–petitioner assailing the order dated petitioner assailing the order dated India has been filed by the defendant (Junior Division), 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Junior Division) 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Jhajjar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 Jhajjar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 Jhajjar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 Jhajjar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 dditional issue has been dismissed. CPC for framing of an additional issue has been dismissed. CPC for framing of an a Brief Facts 2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the plaintiff– The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the plaintiff The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the plaintiff The brief facts leading to the present petition are that the plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated respondent instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated respondent instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated respondent instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated n his favour. The defendant 05.03.2014, allegedly executed by the defendant in his favour. The defendant 05.03.2014, allegedly executed by the defendant i 05.03.2014, allegedly executed by the defendant i contested the claim and filed written statement, specifically pleading that he never contested the claim and filed written statement, specifically pleading that he never contested the claim and filed written statement, specifically pleading that he never contested the claim and filed written statement, specifically pleading that he never executed any agreement to sell on 05.03.2014 and that in fact the true transaction executed any agreement to sell on 05.03.2014 and that in fact the true transaction executed any agreement to sell on 05.03.2014 and that in fact the true transaction executed any agreement to sell on 05.03.2014 and that in fact the true transaction 7.02.2013. On the basis between the parties was an earlier agreement to sell dated 07.02.2013. On the basis between the parties was an earlier agreement to sell dated 0 between the parties was an earlier agreement to sell dated 0 of the pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Issue No.1, which of the pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Issue No.1, which of the pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Issue No.1, which of the pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Issue No.1, which TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6672-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -2- - covered the controversy, was framed as: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for covered the controversy, was framed as: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled covered the controversy, was framed as: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled covered the controversy, was framed as: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled in the plaint? OPP.” decree of specific performance as averred in the plaint? OPP.” decree of specific performance as 3. learned trial Court, while deciding the matter, considered the The learned trial Court, while deciding the matter, considered the learned trial Court, while deciding the matter, considered the The evidence adduced by both parties. In paragraphs 26, 27, 31 and 32 of the judgment, evidence adduced by both parties. In paragraphs 26, 27, 31 and 32 of the judgment, evidence adduced by both parties. In paragraphs 26, 27, 31 and 32 of the judgment, evidence adduced by both parties. In paragraphs 26, 27, 31 and 32 of the judgment, the learned trial Court specifically discussed the case of the defendant regarding the learned trial Court specifically discussed the case of the defendant regarding the learned trial Court specifically discussed the case of the defendant regarding the learned trial Court specifically discussed the case of the defendant regarding the alleged prior agreement dated 07.02.2013, marked as the alleged prior agreemen s the t dated 07.02.2013, marked as Ex. D1, as well as the riter relied upon by the defendant. After entries in the register of the deed writer relied upon by the defendant. After riter relied upon by the defendant. After entries in the r analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court returned detailed analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court returned detailed analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court returned detailed analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court returned detailed the suit of the plaintiff. findings on this plea, and ultimately decreed the suit of the plaintiff. findings on this plea, and ultimately decreed 4. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree. During the pendency of the appeal, he moved an application under Order 41 Rule During the pendency of the appeal, he moved an application under Order 41 Rule During the pendency of the appeal, he moved an application under Order 41 Rule During the pendency of the appeal, he moved an application under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC praying for framing of an additional issue regarding the execution and 25 CPC praying for framing of an additional issue regarding the execution and 25 CPC praying for framing of an additional issue regarding the execution and 25 CPC praying for framing of an additional issue regarding the execution and effect of the agreement dated 07.02.2013. The appellate Court, after hearing both effect of the agreement dated 07.02.2013. The appellate Court, after hearing both effect of the agreement dated 07.02.2013. The appellate Court, after hearing both effect of the agreement dated 07.02.2013. The appellate Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application, holding that the matter regarding the alleged sides, dismissed the application, holding that the matter regarding the alleged sides, dismissed the application, holding that the matter regarding the alleged sides, dismissed the application, holding that the matter regarding the alleged agreement dated 07.02.2013 had already been specifically considered and decided agreement dated 07.02.2013 had already been specifically considered and decided agreement dated 07.02.2013 had already been specifically considered and decided agreement dated 07.02.2013 had already been specifically considered and decided ourt, and therefore, no occasion arose to invoke the provisions of by the trial Court, and therefore, no occasion arose to invoke the provisions of ourt, and therefore, no occasion arose to invoke the provisions of ourt, and therefore, no occasion arose to invoke the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for framing an additional issue. Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for framing an additional issue. Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for framing an additional issue. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the plea about the prior agreement dated 07.02.2013 was a distinct defence defendant’s plea about the prior agreement dated 07.02.2013 was a distinct defence plea about the prior agreement dated 07.02.2013 was a distinct defence plea about the prior agreement dated 07.02.2013 was a distinct defence which had a direct bearing on the genuineness of the subsequent agreement dated which had a direct bearing on the genuineness of the subsequent agreement dated which had a direct bearing on the genuineness of the subsequent agreement dated which had a direct bearing on the genuineness of the subsequent agreement dated framing of a specific issue on the earlier 05.03.2014. It is submitted that non-framing of a specific issue on the earlier framing of a specific issue on the earlier 05.03.2014. It is submitted that non the defendant, and therefore the lower appellate Court agreement has prejudiced the defendant, and therefore the lower appellate Court the defendant, and therefore the lower appellate Court agreement has prejudiced erred in declining the request to frame an additional issue. erred in declining the request to frame an additional issue. erred in declining the request to frame an additional issue. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6672-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -3- - Findings 6. I have considered the contention and find no merit in the same. A I have considered the contention and find no merit in the same. A I have considered the contention and find no merit in the same. A I have considered the contention and find no merit in the same. A hat the plea of the perusal of the judgment of the trial Court clearly reveals that the plea of the perusal of the judgment of the trial Court clearly reveals t perusal of the judgment of the trial Court clearly reveals t defendant regarding the alleged earlier agreement dated 07.02.2013 was not defendant regarding the alleged earlier agreement dated 07.02.2013 was not defendant regarding the alleged earlier agreement dated 07.02.2013 was not defendant regarding the alleged earlier agreement dated 07.02.2013 was not D1, ignored. On the contrary, the trial Court took note of the document Ex. D1, ignored. On the contrary, the trial Court took note of the document ignored. On the contrary, the trial Court took note of the document examined the entries in the register of the deed writer and gave detailed findings in examined the entries in the register of the deed writer and gave detailed findings in examined the entries in the register of the deed writer and gave detailed findings in examined the entries in the register of the deed writer and gave detailed findings in paragraphs 27 and 32 of its judgment. Thus, the Court was alive to the defence set paragraphs 27 and 32 of its judgment. Thus, the Court was alive to the defence set paragraphs 27 and 32 of its judgment. Thus, the Court was alive to the defence set paragraphs 27 and 32 of its judgment. Thus, the Court was alive to the defence set up by the defendant and adjudicated upon it while deciding Issue No.1. Once the up by the defendant and adjudicated upon it while deciding Issue No.1. Once the up by the defendant and adjudicated upon it while deciding Issue No.1. Once the up by the defendant and adjudicated upon it while deciding Issue No.1. Once the trial Court has already examined the matter on merits and returned findings, it trial Court has already examined the matter on merits and returned findings, it trial Court has already examined the matter on merits and returned findings, it trial Court has already examined the matter on merits and returned findings, it id that the absence of a separately worded issue has caused any cannot be said that the absence of a separately worded issue has caused any id that the absence of a separately worded issue has caused any id that the absence of a separately worded issue has caused any prejudice. 7. Order 41 Rule 25 CPC empowers the appellate Court to frame Order 41 Rule 25 CPC empowers the appellate Court to frame Order 41 Rule 25 CPC empowers the appellate Court to frame Order 41 Rule 25 CPC empowers the appellate Court to frame additional issues and remit them to the trial Court for trial if the Court considers additional issues and remit them to the trial Court for trial if the Court considers additional issues and remit them to the trial Court for trial if the Court considers additional issues and remit them to the trial Court for trial if the Court considers ust decision of the case has not been tried. The that an issue essential for the just decision of the case has not been tried. The ust decision of the case has not been tried. The that an issue essential for the j object of the provision is to ensure that no material question of fact remains object of the provision is to ensure that no material question of fact remains object of the provision is to ensure that no material question of fact remains object of the provision is to ensure that no material question of fact remains undecided. However, the said power is not to be exercised where the trial Court undecided. However, the said power is not to be exercised where the trial Court undecided. However, the said power is not to be exercised where the trial Court undecided. However, the said power is not to be exercised where the trial Court a finding, though without framing has, in fact, considered the matter and rendered a finding, though without framing has, in fact, considered the matter and rendered has, in fact, considered the matter and rendered a separate formal issue. The test is whether the Court was conscious of the a separate formal issue. The test is whether the Court was conscious of the a separate formal issue. The test is whether the Court was conscious of the a separate formal issue. The test is whether the Court was conscious of the controversy and decided it. In the present case, as noticed above, the trial Court has controversy and decided it. In the present case, as noticed above, the trial Court has controversy and decided it. In the present case, as noticed above, the trial Court has controversy and decided it. In the present case, as noticed above, the trial Court has 02.2013. Therefore, the given specific findings on the alleged agreement dated 07.02.2013. Therefore, the given specific findings on the alleged agreement dated 07. given specific findings on the alleged agreement dated 07. situation does not attract Order 41 Rule 25 CPC. situation does not attract Order 41 Rule 25 CPC. situation does not attract Order 41 Rule 25 CPC. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6672-2025 (O&M) (O&M) -4- - Conclusion 8. In this view of the matter, the order of the lower appellate Court In this view of the matter, the order of the lower appellate Court In this view of the matter, the order of the lower appellate Court In this view of the matter, the order of the lower appellate Court refusing to frame an additional issue is fully justified and does not suffer from any refusing to frame an additional issue is fully justified and does not suffer from any refusing to frame an additional issue is fully justified and does not suffer from any refusing to frame an additional issue is fully justified and does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the the the the Constitution of India. Constitution of India. 9. 10. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 September 19, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document