Raj Kapoor And Anr vs Vidya Devi Now Deceased Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 15189 P&H

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117155




CR-5135-2023(O&M)                        -1-         2023:PHHC:117155

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                       CR-5135-2023(O&M)
                                                    Date of Order:05.09.2023

Raj Kapoor and another
                                                                     .Petitioners
                                    Versus

Vidya Devi now deceased through her LR Mahavir Prasad

                                                                   ..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

1. Before the first appellate court an application filed by the

defendants for framing the additional issues has been dismissed. The First

Appellate Court has found that the parties knew about the dispute and they

led evidence and the judgment and decree was passed after considering their

submissions.

2. The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that

the proper issues were not framed as required under Order XIV of the Code

of Civil Procedure, 1908. He submits that the issue with regard to relief of

possession and revocation of license has not been framed.

3. This court has considered the submissions of the learned

counsel representing the petitioners.

4. In fact, the issues are not required to be framed on the basis of

the relief claimed in the suit. Order XIV Rule 3 CPC provides that each

material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by the other shall

form the subject of a distinct issue. The respondent-Smt. Vidya Devi (since

deceased) filed a suit for declaration and possession claiming that her two

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117155

CR-5135-2023(O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:117155

sons and grandson are in possession as the licencees and now the licenses

have been revoked. The parties went to trial after knowing the case of each

other. They were represented by their respective counsels. Moreover, the

first appeal was filed in 2019, whereas the application for framing the

additional issues has been filed in 2023.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere is

made out.

6. Dismissed, accordingly.

7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

September 05, 2023                                    (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt                                                         JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned                 :YES/NO
Whether reportable                        :YES/NO

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:117155

2 of 2