- (1.) By means of order dated March 9, 1977, the trial Court i.e. Subordinate Judge, First Class, Rajpura, declined the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiffs for the framing of an additional issue to the effect whether the defendant is the daughter of Ram Partap deceased. It is not disputed that the suit was filed as far back as July 4, 1970 and after the pleading of the parties, the necessary issues were framed on August 17, 1970. Issue No. 1 as framed at that time is as follows :- "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the estate of Ram Partap deceased in preference to Mst. Angrejo defendant and if so to what effect ?" Both the parties led evidence under the issues so framed and the case was ripe for arguments. It was at that stage that the application for framing of the additional issue was filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The matter was considered by the trial Court and it came to the conclusion that the framing of the additional issue was absolutely unnecessary as issue No. 1 noticed above covered the point which is now sought to be raised in the additional issue. The purpose of framing additional issue is indeed to do justice to the parties in the sense that a controversial point is not left undetermined, but this purpose cannot be utilised for delaying the disposal of a long standing litigation. If the petitioner was really serious in regard to the framing of the additional issue, he would not have waited for about seven years before making such a prayer. The prayer for framing additional issue is nothing but dilatory tactic and the same was, therefore, rejected by the trial Court. The learned trial Court has also noticed that the defendant Shrimati Angrejo had specifically alleged that she is the daughter of Ram Partap deceased. There was no rebuttal to this allegation at any stage. It is now too late in the day to start a new chapter in this litigation which would entirely change the cause of action and the pattern of litigation and it would also necessitate the recording of fresh evidence after lapse of such a long time. The jurisdiction exercised by the trial Court is quite judicious and correct. There is no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
(2.) The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear before the trial Court on September 18, 1978, who shall proceed with the case in accordance with law.;