Punjab & Haryana High Court Declines Interference With Order Refusing Framing of Additional Issues; Holds Existing Issues Sufficient

Case Name: Minakshi alias Fullo v. Bajrangi Parshad and Another
Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025
Citation: CR-8435-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court’s refusal to frame additional issues under Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 CPC. The Court held that the proposed issues were already comprehensively subsumed within the issues framed earlier and that duplication or fragmentation of issues is not warranted when the existing issues sufficiently cover the material propositions in dispute. No jurisdictional error was found to justify interference under Article 227.

Summary: The revision petitioner sought framing of additional issues in a civil suit filed by the respondent–plaintiff seeking mandatory and permanent injunction for recovery of possession of the suit property from his son and daughter-in-law. The petitioner contended that specific issues relating to whether the suit property constituted a shared household of defendant No.2 and whether any decree for possession could be passed against her were required to be framed.

The trial court had earlier framed issues covering entitlement to mandatory and permanent injunction, maintainability of the suit, locus standi, misjoinder, bar under the Specific Relief Act, and cause of action. While rejecting the application for additional issues, the trial court held that the controversy stood adequately covered by the existing issues.

The High Court affirmed this view, holding that the question of shared household, nature of possession, and the rights claimed by defendant No.2 were intrinsic to the adjudication of the issues relating to mandatory and permanent injunction. The Court reiterated that issues are to be framed only on material propositions requiring distinct adjudication and not on every plea raised by a party. Where the proposed issues are already embedded within the scope of the existing issues, framing of additional issues is unnecessary. Finding no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error, the Court declined to interfere.

Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the order refusing framing of additional issues, holding that the existing issues were sufficient for effective adjudication of the dispute.