R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order dated 13th September, 1999 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, but dismissed the application of the petitioners under Order 14, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code for framing of the additional issue.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction and in the alternative consequential relief for joint possession, in respect of the land detailed in the head-note of the plaint alleging that there are three sets of defendants represented by their different lawyers and these defendants have filed three written statements. Whereas the stand of defendant Nos. 13 and 14 in their written statement is that they have become owners of the land in question by way of adverse possession, while the stand of defendant Nos. 2 to 12 is that they are occupying the land on account of the fact that they are the occupancy tenants. This part of the defence of the defendants has been specifically denied by the plaintiffs in their replication. In this view of the matter, when the defendants have taken a specific plea with regard to adverse possession and occupancy tenants, it was obligatory on the part of the court to frame a specific issue in this regard, which has not been framed at the time of framing of the issues and, therefore, an additional issue may be framed for proper adjudication of the matter. Notice of the application was given to the respondents and he filed a reply to the application, and it was pleaded by them that the present application has been moved after a lapse of 9 years without assigning any reason. Moreover, no additional issue is required to be framed and that the controversy between the parties can be well covered by the issues which had already been framed by the trial Court which, in fact, the plaintiffs want to fill in the lacuna of this case by making proper application which is mala fide and is not legally maintainable.
(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners holding that it is a belated one and no further issue is required to be framed. In this manner, the application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13th September, 1999. Hence the present revision.;