CR-4270 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Kulwant Singh Malkiat Singh & Ors. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate For the petitioner. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.498 of 2017 titled "Malkiat Singh and another versus Kulwant Singh and others" the supervisory jurisdi India, challenging the order dated 29.04.2026 learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, whereby his application for framing an additional issue has been dismissed. 2. The respondents possession by way of partition along with injunction in respect of the property detailed in the head Defendants No.4 to 32 were impleaded as proforma defendants. Upon completion of pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 18.12.2019. Significantly, while framing the issues, the trial Court specifically recorded that no other issue either arose or was pressed by the parties. Nearly four years thereafter, on 17.10.2023, defendant No.1 moved an application (Annexure P-11) additional issue be framed: "Whether defendants No.4 to 32 are necessary parties to the suit? It was further prayed that the said issue be treated as a preliminary issue. Page N: 1 of 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CR No. 4270 of 2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 Versus Malkiat Singh & Ors. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate For the petitioner. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.498 of 2017 "Malkiat Singh and another versus Kulwant Singh and others" the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.04.2026 learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, whereby his application for framing an additional issue has been dismissed. The respondents-plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking a decree for possession by way of partition along with consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property detailed in the head Defendants No.4 to 32 were impleaded as proforma defendants. Upon completion of pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 12.2019. Significantly, while framing the issues, the trial Court specifically recorded that no other issue either arose or was pressed by the parties. Nearly four years thereafter, on 17.10.2023, defendant No.1 moved an application 11) under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC praying that the following additional issue be framed: Whether defendants No.4 to 32 are necessary parties to the suit? It was further prayed that the said issue be treated as a preliminary issue. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4270 of 2026(O&M) Date of Decision: 06.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA The petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.498 of 2017 "Malkiat Singh and another versus Kulwant Singh and others", has invoked ction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 29.04.2026 (Annexure P-15) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, whereby his application for framing plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking a decree for consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of the property detailed in the head-note of the plaint. Defendants No.4 to 32 were impleaded as proforma defendants. Upon completion of pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 12.2019. Significantly, while framing the issues, the trial Court specifically recorded that no other issue either arose or was pressed by the parties. Nearly four years thereafter, on 17.10.2023, defendant No.1 moved an application rder XIV Rule 5 CPC praying that the following Whether defendants No.4 to 32 are necessary parties to the suit?" It was further prayed that the said issue be treated as a preliminary issue. Petitioner Respondents The petitioner, who is defendant No.1 in Civil Suit No.498 of 2017 , has invoked ction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, whereby his application for framing plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking a decree for consequential relief of permanent note of the plaint. Defendants No.4 to 32 were impleaded as proforma defendants. Upon completion of pleadings, issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 12.2019. Significantly, while framing the issues, the trial Court specifically recorded that no other issue either arose or was pressed by the parties. Nearly four years thereafter, on 17.10.2023, defendant No.1 moved an application rder XIV Rule 5 CPC praying that the following JITEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4270 of 2026 3. The learned trial Court dismisse order. It is not disputed that, in the meantime, the plaintiffs have already concluded their evidence and the contesting defendants, including the present petitioner, have also examined two witnesses in defence. 4. Learn partition, all co determines, whether defendants No.4 to 32 are necessary parties, the controversy cannot be effectively adjudicated. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Order XIV Rule 1 CPC contemplates framing of issues only when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Likewise, though Order XIV frame additional issues at any stage of the proceedings, such power is discretionary and is intended to ensure proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. The provision cannot be invoked to in an altogether new controversy, which neither emerges from the pleadings nor is necessary for determining the dispute. 7. A perusal of the written statement filed by defendant No.1 petitioner herein does not disclose any pleading that defendants co-sharers in the suit property, or that they possess any independent interest liable to be protected in the proceedings, or that the suit is bad for non or improper joinder of parties. In the absence of any foundational pleading, n material proposition arose requiring adjudication on the question sought to be raised by way of the proposed additional issue. 8. It is equally significant that when the issues were framed on 18.12.2019, no objection whatsoever was raised by the petiti framing of such an issue. The order framing issues specifically records that no other issue either arose or was pressed. Having allowed the suit to proceed for several years, permitting the plaintiffs to conclude their entire evidence and Page N: 2 of 3 The learned trial Court dismissed the application by the impugned order. It is not disputed that, in the meantime, the plaintiffs have already concluded their evidence and the contesting defendants, including the present petitioner, have also examined two witnesses in defence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit for partition, all co-sharers are necessary parties and unless the Court first determines, whether defendants No.4 to 32 are necessary parties, the controversy cannot be effectively adjudicated. ave considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Order XIV Rule 1 CPC contemplates framing of issues only when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Likewise, though Order XIV Rule 5 CPC empowers the Court to amend or frame additional issues at any stage of the proceedings, such power is discretionary and is intended to ensure proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. The provision cannot be invoked to in an altogether new controversy, which neither emerges from the pleadings nor is necessary for determining the dispute. A perusal of the written statement filed by defendant No.1 petitioner herein does not disclose any pleading that defendants sharers in the suit property, or that they possess any independent interest liable to be protected in the proceedings, or that the suit is bad for non or improper joinder of parties. In the absence of any foundational pleading, n material proposition arose requiring adjudication on the question sought to be raised by way of the proposed additional issue. It is equally significant that when the issues were framed on 18.12.2019, no objection whatsoever was raised by the petiti framing of such an issue. The order framing issues specifically records that no other issue either arose or was pressed. Having allowed the suit to proceed for several years, permitting the plaintiffs to conclude their entire evidence and d the application by the impugned order. It is not disputed that, in the meantime, the plaintiffs have already concluded their evidence and the contesting defendants, including the present petitioner, have also examined two witnesses in defence. ed counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit for sharers are necessary parties and unless the Court first determines, whether defendants No.4 to 32 are necessary parties, the ave considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Order XIV Rule 1 CPC contemplates framing of issues only when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the Rule 5 CPC empowers the Court to amend or frame additional issues at any stage of the proceedings, such power is discretionary and is intended to ensure proper adjudication of the real controversy between the parties. The provision cannot be invoked to introduce an altogether new controversy, which neither emerges from the pleadings nor is A perusal of the written statement filed by defendant No.1 petitioner herein does not disclose any pleading that defendants No.4 to 32 are sharers in the suit property, or that they possess any independent interest liable to be protected in the proceedings, or that the suit is bad for non-joinder or improper joinder of parties. In the absence of any foundational pleading, n material proposition arose requiring adjudication on the question sought to be raised by way of the proposed additional issue. It is equally significant that when the issues were framed on 18.12.2019, no objection whatsoever was raised by the petitioner seeking framing of such an issue. The order framing issues specifically records that no other issue either arose or was pressed. Having allowed the suit to proceed for several years, permitting the plaintiffs to conclude their entire evidence and d the application by the impugned order. It is not disputed that, in the meantime, the plaintiffs have already concluded their evidence and the contesting defendants, including the present ed counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit for sharers are necessary parties and unless the Court first determines, whether defendants No.4 to 32 are necessary parties, the ave considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the Order XIV Rule 1 CPC contemplates framing of issues only when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the Rule 5 CPC empowers the Court to amend or frame additional issues at any stage of the proceedings, such power is discretionary and is intended to ensure proper adjudication of the real troduce an altogether new controversy, which neither emerges from the pleadings nor is A perusal of the written statement filed by defendant No.1 – No.4 to 32 are sharers in the suit property, or that they possess any independent interest joinder or improper joinder of parties. In the absence of any foundational pleading, no material proposition arose requiring adjudication on the question sought to be It is equally significant that when the issues were framed on oner seeking framing of such an issue. The order framing issues specifically records that no other issue either arose or was pressed. Having allowed the suit to proceed for several years, permitting the plaintiffs to conclude their entire evidence and JITEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4270 of 2026 thereafter leading his own evidence by examining two witnesses, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the settled course of trial by seeking framing of an additional issue which is unsupported by the pleadings. 9. Even otherwise, the question whether proper party is essentially a legal consequence flowing from the pleadings and the nature of the relief claimed. Merely because defendants No.4 to 32 have been impleaded as proforma defendants does not ipso facto necessitate fram of a distinct issue regarding their status, particularly when no party has disputed their impleadment through appropriate pleadings. 10. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly exercised its discretion in declining the prayer for framing an a of the proceedings. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor reflects perversity or material irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is we supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is intended to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not to substitute one plausible view with another in respect of discretionary procedural orders. 11. Consequently, same is hereby dismissed. 12. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present revision petition and shall not be construed as an expression 06.07.2026 Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable Page N: 3 of 3 eafter leading his own evidence by examining two witnesses, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the settled course of trial by seeking framing of an additional issue which is unsupported by the pleadings. Even otherwise, the question whether proper party is essentially a legal consequence flowing from the pleadings and the nature of the relief claimed. Merely because defendants No.4 to 32 have been impleaded as proforma defendants does not ipso facto necessitate fram of a distinct issue regarding their status, particularly when no party has disputed their impleadment through appropriate pleadings. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly exercised its discretion in declining the prayer for framing an additional issue at such an advanced stage of the proceedings. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor reflects perversity or material irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is we supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is intended to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not to substitute one plausible view with another in respect of discretionary procedural orders. Consequently, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present revision petition and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the pending civil suit. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No eafter leading his own evidence by examining two witnesses, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the settled course of trial by seeking framing of an additional issue which is unsupported by the pleadings. Even otherwise, the question whether a person is a necessary or proper party is essentially a legal consequence flowing from the pleadings and the nature of the relief claimed. Merely because defendants No.4 to 32 have been impleaded as proforma defendants does not ipso facto necessitate framing of a distinct issue regarding their status, particularly when no party has disputed their impleadment through appropriate pleadings. The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly exercised its discretion dditional issue at such an advanced stage of the proceedings. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor reflects perversity or material irregularity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is intended to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not to substitute one plausible view with another in respect of discretionary procedural orders. finding no merit in the present revision petition, the It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present revision petition and shall not be on the merits of the pending civil suit. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No eafter leading his own evidence by examining two witnesses, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reopen the settled course of trial by seeking framing of a person is a necessary or proper party is essentially a legal consequence flowing from the pleadings and the nature of the relief claimed. Merely because defendants No.4 to 32 have ing of a distinct issue regarding their status, particularly when no party has disputed The learned trial Court has, therefore, rightly exercised its discretion dditional issue at such an advanced stage of the proceedings. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor reflects perversity or material irregularity warranting interference ll settled that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is intended to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not to substitute one plausible view finding no merit in the present revision petition, the It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present revision petition and shall not be JITEN SHARMA 2026.07.07 14:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document