Sabina, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFFS had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit property was joint Hindu Family Property with consequential relief of joint possession. The trial Court framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP 2.IF issue No. 1 is proved, whether the Plaintiff is entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form as alleged in the written statement?OPD 3.WHETHER the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4.WHETHER the proper court fee has not been affixed on the plaint? OPD Whether the suit is bad for want of notice Under Section 80 CPC? OPD 5.RELIEF . Plaintiffs moved an application for framing of the additional issues. The trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 11.2.2011. Hence, the present petition by the Plaintiff.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the material issues had not been framed by the trial Court. The trial Court was expected to go through the pleadings of the parties and framed necessary issues accordingly. The trial Court had failed to frame the issues to the effect as to whether the suit property was Joint Hindu Family Property of the Petitioners and whether Will dated 2.11.2000 had been executed by Shiv Ram in favor of the Defendants.
(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.;