UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No.85 of 2026 Saurabh Balyan …Revisionist Versus 1. Smt. Meera Goel …Respondent 2. Praveen Goyal 3. Deepshikha …Proforma respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the revisionist Mr. Arvind Vashishtha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Disha Vashishtha and Ms. Devanshi Joshi, learned counsel the respondent no.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Judgment: 21.08.2026 Hon’ble Shri Justice Subhash Upadhyay, J. 1. By means of present civil revision, filed under section 115 of CPC, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 14.07.2026 passed by learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun in O.S. no.447/2022, whereby the application no.305C2 filed by the revisionist/defendant no.2 under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, seeking framing of additional issues, has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an Original Suit No.447/2022 was filed by the respondent no.1/plaintiff against the revisionist and proforma respondent nos.2 and 3 herein. The proforma respondent nos.2 and 3 herein were arrayed as defendant nos.1 and 3 1 UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 and the revisionist was arrayed as defendant no.2 in the said suit. The aforesaid suit was filed for permanent injunction thereby restraining the revisionist/defendant no.2 and proforma respondent nos.2 and 3 herein from interfering in the title, peaceful possession, use and enjoyment of the scheduled property specified in the plaint. The respondent no.1/plaintiff contended that the mother of the plaintiff (Smt. Jadishwari Gupta) purchased the land bearing khasra no.39/1 (new no.26Ga) having an area of 455.24 sq.mts. situated in Village Brahmmawala (Sahastradhara Road), Dehradun (hereinafter referred to the ‘suit property’) from Smt. Pushpa Tandon vide registered sale deed dated 22.03.2004 and her name was duly mutated in the revenue records. It is the further case of respondent no.1/plaintiff that, her mother being the absolute and exclusive recorded owner / bhumidhar of the suit property, vide registered Will dated 22.03.2004, bequeathed the said property in favour of respondent no.1/plaintiff. After the death of Smt. Jagdishwari Gupta on 02.10.2016, the respondent no.1/plaintiff became the absolute and exclusive owner of the said suit property. It is the further case of respondent no.1/plaintiff that one Shri Ashish Bhargav having no concern or connection with 2 UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 the suit property through his alleged authorised representative namely Praveen Goyal-proforma respondent no.2/defendant no.1 filed a false and frivolous suit being suit no.139 of 2020 Ashish Bhargav vs. Anand Prakash and without impleading the respondent no.1/plaintiff in the suit obtained an ex-parte injunction. The said suit was in respect of khasra no.39/3 (new no.26Ka and 40ka). Under the garb of the ex-parte injunction, the possession of the respondent no.1/plaintiff over the suit property was sought to be disturbed. 3. In the suit, though the respondent no.1/plaintiff was not made a party but her brother was impleaded as defendant no.2 by his childhood name “Raju”. The respondent no.1/plaintiff filed an impleadment application in the said suit and a preliminary objection was also filed by her brother and after hearing the parties, learned Civil Judge (S.D.), vide order dated 09.06.2020, modified the injunction order and directed the parties to maintain status quo. During the pendency of the said suit, Ashish Bhargav through his attorney executed three sale deeds. Two sale deeds were executed in favour of proforma respondent no.2/defendant no.1 and one sale deed in favour of revisionist/defendant no.2. In the pending suit 3 UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 no.139/2020, brother of the respondent no.1/plaintiff initiated proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC against Shri Ashish Bhargav and the attesting witness Virender Verma for execution of aforesaid sale deeds, in defiance to the interim injunction order of status quo. The said proceedings were said to be pending at the time of institution of the suit. 4. The Respondent no.1 / plaintiff apprehended that after the sale deeds being executed in favour of proforma respondent no.2/defendant no.1 and the revisionist/defendant no.2, suit no.139/2020 would not be contested by Shri Ashish Bhargav. As the dismissal of the said suit would affect her right, as such the respondent no.1/plaintiff filed the suit no.447/2022 against the revisionist and the proforma respondent nos.2 and 3 herein for permanent injunction. In the aforesaid suit no.447/2022 the revisionist/defendant no.2 filed his written statement and contended that Smt. Pushpa Tandon, who sold the property to the mother of respondent no.1/plaintiff, did not possess any lawful title or authority in her favour. The proforma respondent nos.2 and 3/defendant nos.1 and 3 also filed their separate written statements. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 4 UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 03.07.2026, framed the issues in the case. Thereafter, on an application filed by proforma respondent no.2/defendant no.1 under order XIV Rule 5 CPC, the Trial Court, vide its order dated 09.07.2026, framed an additional issue. Subsequently, the revisionist/defendant no.2 also filed an application bearing paper no.305-C2 under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC praying for framing of additional issues, however, the said application was rejected by the Trial Court by the impugned order dated 14.07.2026, against which the present revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the entire claim of ownership of respondent no.1/plaintiff is founded upon a void and fraudulent chain of title i.e. the alleged sale deed dated 22.03.2004, the subsequent mutation and the alleged Will. Thus, the said issue goes to the root of the plaintiff’s title and the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application no.305-C2 filed by the revisionist for framing the additional issue. 6. He further submits that while allowing the application of proforma respondent no.2/defendant no.1 under order XIV Rule 5 CPC the learned trial court took into consideration the pleadings made in his written statement and framed the additional issues, whereas in considering 5 UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 the application filed by the revisionist, the said provisions were not followed and the jurisdiction sought to be exercised was not done. He further submits that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that framing of proper issues is crucial in deciding the real questions involved in the controversy between the parties and ensure a fair and effective trial. The failure to frame said issue has seriously prejudiced the claim and defence of the revisionist. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1/plaintiff made preliminary objection and contended that as per the proviso to Section 115(1) CPC (as substituted by the CPC Amendment Act, 2002), the Hon’ble Court shall not vary or reverse any order made in the course of a suit except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit. He further submits that there is no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order and the application filed by the revisionist has been decided on merits by recording cogent reasons. He further submits that Section 115 CPC is not an avenue for correcting an order merely because it is alleged to be erroneous on facts or in law. Moreover, the proceedings of the suit has been expedited by order dated 06.04.2026 6 UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 passed by the High Court in WPMS No.813/2026 “Meera Goyal vs. Praveen Goyal & Others”, wherein this Court had directed the learned Trial Court to decide the O.S. no.447/2022 within four months. He further submits that the additional issues sought to be framed and to be incorporated as additional issues by the revisionist are already covered by the issues and the additional issues framed by the Court and the learned trial court has considered the said fact and has thus held that the issues already framed take care of the additional issues sought to be incorporated by the revisionist. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The facts which are not in dispute in the present case are that the learned Trial Court on 03.07.2026 had framed the following issues:- “i) Whether the plaintiff is the owner / bhumidhar in possession of the suit property on the basis of the Will dated 23.03.2004 ii) Whether the defendants have attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff? iii) Whether the plaintiff’s suit is barred by Sections 34 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963? iv) Whether the plaintiff has undervalued the suit? v) Whether the plaintiff has paid insufficient court fee” vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed? 7 UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 9. Thereafter, on an application filed by proforma respondent no.2/defendant no.1 in the suit, who sought two additional issues to be framed, one additional issue was framed on 09.07.2026, which is as follows:- “vi) Whether the plaintiff’s mother, Smt. Jagdishwari Gupta, had a lawful right to transfer the disputed property by Will, and if so, its effect?” 10. The revisionist/respondent no.2 thereafter moved an application no.305C2 on 12.07.2026 for framing of four additional issues. The issues sought to be framed by the revisionist are as follows:- “1- D;k çfroknhx.k }kjk oknxzLr Hkwfe ds lEcUèk esa okfnuh ds dfFkr LokfeRo vfèkdkj dks fookfnr fd;s tkus rFkk okfnuh ds LokfeRo ij es?kkPNkfnr mRiUu gksus ds dkj.k okfnuh }kjk ?kks"k.kk dk vuqrks"k ekaxs fcuk LFkk;h fu"ksèkkKk dk okn fofèk esa iks"k.kh; gS\ 2- D;k Jherh iq"ik VaMu dks okfnuh dh ekrk Jherh txnhÜojh xqIrk ds i{k esa oknxzLr Hkwfe dk foØ; foys[k fnuk¡d 22@03@2004 fu"ikfnr djus dk dksbZ oSèkkfud vfèkdkj ,oa oknxzLr Hkwfe dk LokfeRo çkIr Fkk \ 3- D;k okfnuh dks viuh ekrk Jherh txnhÜojh xqIrk dh dfFkr olh;r ds vkèkkj ij oknxzLr Hkwfe ij dksbZ oSèk LokfeRo ,oa vfèkdkj çkIr gqvk gS\ 4- D;k okfnuh dh ekrk Jherh txnhÜojh xqIrk ds i{k esa oknxzLr Hkwfe ds foØ; foys[k fnu‚d 22@03@2004 esa dwVjpuk dj jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa okfnuh dh ekrk Jherh txnhÜojh xqIrk dk ukekUrj.k ¼Mutation½ gqvk gS\ ;fn gk¡ rks mldk çHkko\” 8 UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 11. Learned counsel for the revisionist, during the course of arguments, submitted that issue no.2 sought to be framed as an additional issue goes to the root of the matter besides other three issues which are also relevant for deciding the controversy. 12. Learned Trial Court, considering the application filed by the revisionist and by the impugned order, came to a conclusion that the issues sought to be incorporated are already covered under the issues and the additional issues framed by the Court. The finding recorded by the Trial Court in para 6 of the order dated 14.07.2026 reads as under:- “6- tgka rd çfroknh la[;k&2 dh vksj ls ;ksftr çkFkZuk&i= esa ;kfpr vfrfjä okn fcUnq fojfpr fd;s tkus dh ;kpuk dk ç'u gS rks bl lEcU/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd U;k;ky; }kjk iwoZ esa fnukad 03-07-2026 dks 06 okn fcUnqvksa ,oa fnukad 09-07-2026 dks vfrfjä okn fcUnq la[;k&7 dk fojpu fd;k tk pqdk gS] mä fojfpr okn fcUnqvksa ds voyksdu ls fofnr gS fd çfroknh la[;k&2 }kjk ftu rF;ksa ds fuLrkj.k gsrq vfrfjä okn fcUnqvksa ds fojpu fd;s tkus dh ;kpuk dh xbZ gS] mä rF;ksa dk fu/kkZj.k U;k;ky; }kjk iwoZ esa fojfpr okn fcUnqvksa ds fuLrkj.k esa lekfgr gksuk ifjyf{kr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa çfroknh la[;k&2 dh vksj ls ;kfpr vfrfjä okn fcUnqvksa dks bl Lrj ij fojfpr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha jg tkrk gSA vr% çfroknh la[;k&2 dh vksj ls çLrqr çkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr çrhr ugha gksrk gSA vkns'k rn~uqlkj&” 9 UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 13. The object of framing the issues is to deliberate upon the questions on which the parties have to lead evidence and the purpose is to indicate the party on whom the burden of proof lies. Moreover, non-framing of an issue in a particular manner, as sought by the party, is insignificant when the parties are well aware of their rival case. The power to amend or strike out any issue under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC rests upon the Court and the additional issues can be framed, as may be necessary, for determining the matter in controversy. In the present case, the learned Trial Court had exercised the said power and has come to a conclusion that the matter in controversy can be considered and decided under the issues already framed. This Court has taken into consideration the issues and the additional issues framed by the learned Trial Court and has also seen the additional issues sought to be framed by the revisionist and is in agreement with the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the issues sought to be framed by the revisionist are already covered under the issues already framed. Moreover, the Coordinate bench of this Court in WPMS no.813/2026 had directed the Trial Court to expedite the matter and to decide the same, preferably within four 10 UKHC010133282026 2026:UHC:7587 months. Thus, the learned Trial Court is justified in making the efforts to decide the suit expeditiously. 14. In view of the above, this Court is of view that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The parties are well aware of their rival claims and can lead evidence in support of their claims under the issues and additional issues already framed by the Trial Court. 15. Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) 21.08.2026 Rajni 11