CR-6672-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Parkash Rajbir (since deceased) through LRs CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta MANDEEP PANNU 1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Jhajjar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for framing of an a Brief Facts 2. 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 05.03.2014, allegedly executed by the defendant i 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 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 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS deceased) through LRs CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant–petitioner assailing the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Jhajjar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for framing of an additional issue has been dismissed. 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 05.03.2014, allegedly executed by the defendant i 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 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 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6672-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 19.09.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of petitioner assailing the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Junior Division) Jhajjar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 dditional issue has been dismissed. 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 05.03.2014, allegedly executed by the defendant in his favour. The defendant 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 between the parties was an earlier agreement to sell dated 07.02.2013. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Issue No.1, which - The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of petitioner assailing the order dated (Junior Division), Jhajjar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 25 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 n his favour. The defendant 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 7.02.2013. On the basis 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) covered the controversy, was framed as: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled decree of specific performance as 3. The 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 alleged prior agreemen entries in the r analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court returned detailed findings on this plea, and ultimately decreed 4. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree. 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 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 agreement dated 07.02.2013 had already been specifically considered and decided by the trial Court, and therefore, no occasion arose to invoke the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for framing an additional issue. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the defendant’s 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 05.03.2014. It is submitted that non agreement has prejudiced erred in declining the request to frame an additional issue. (O&M) covered the controversy, was framed as: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled decree of specific performance as averred in the plaint? OPP.” The learned trial Court, while deciding the matter, considered the 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 alleged prior agreement dated 07.02.2013, marked as entries in the register of the deed writer relied upon by the defendant. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court returned detailed findings on this plea, and ultimately decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree. 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 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 agreement dated 07.02.2013 had already been specifically considered and decided ourt, and therefore, no occasion arose to invoke the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for framing an additional issue. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the 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 05.03.2014. It is submitted that non-framing of a specific issue on the earlier agreement has prejudiced the defendant, and therefore the lower appellate Court erred in declining the request to frame an additional issue. -2- covered the controversy, was framed as: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled in the plaint? OPP.” learned trial Court, while deciding the matter, considered the 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 t dated 07.02.2013, marked as Ex. D1, as well as the riter relied upon by the defendant. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court returned detailed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree. 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 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 agreement dated 07.02.2013 had already been specifically considered and decided ourt, and therefore, no occasion arose to invoke the provisions of Order 41 Rule 25 CPC for framing an additional issue. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the 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 framing of a specific issue on the earlier the defendant, and therefore the lower appellate Court erred in declining the request to frame an additional issue. - covered the controversy, was framed as: “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for learned trial Court, while deciding the matter, considered the 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 s the riter relied upon by the defendant. After analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court returned detailed The defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree. 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 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 agreement dated 07.02.2013 had already been specifically considered and decided ourt, and therefore, no occasion arose to invoke the provisions of Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before this Court that the 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 framing of a specific issue on the earlier the defendant, and therefore the lower appellate Court TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6672-2025 (O&M) Findings 6. I have considered the contention and find no merit in the same. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court clearly reveals t defendant regarding the alleged earlier agreement dated 07.02.2013 was not 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 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 trial Court has already examined the matter on merits and returned findings, it cannot be said that the absence of a separately worded issue has caused any prejudice. 7. 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 that an issue essential for the j 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 has, in fact, considered the matter and rendered 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 given specific findings on the alleged agreement dated 07. situation does not attract Order 41 Rule 25 CPC. (O&M) I have considered the contention and find no merit in the same. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court clearly reveals t defendant regarding the alleged earlier agreement dated 07.02.2013 was not 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 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 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 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 that an issue essential for the just decision of the case has not been tried. The 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 has, in fact, considered the matter and rendered 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 given specific findings on the alleged agreement dated 07. situation does not attract Order 41 Rule 25 CPC. -3- I have considered the contention and find no merit in the same. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court clearly reveals that the plea of the defendant regarding the alleged earlier agreement dated 07.02.2013 was not ignored. On the contrary, the trial Court took note of the document Ex. D1, 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 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 id that the absence of a separately worded issue has caused any 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 ust decision of the case has not been tried. The 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 has, in fact, considered the matter and rendered a finding, though without framing 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 given specific findings on the alleged agreement dated 07.02.2013. Therefore, the situation does not attract Order 41 Rule 25 CPC. - I have considered the contention and find no merit in the same. A hat the plea of the defendant regarding the alleged earlier agreement dated 07.02.2013 was not D1, 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 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 id that the absence of a separately worded issue has caused any 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 ust decision of the case has not been tried. The 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 a finding, though without framing 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 02.2013. Therefore, the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6672-2025 (O&M) Conclusion 8. 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 illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. September 19, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) 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 perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- 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 perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE - 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 perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.09.19 13:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document