Failure to Frame Issue Was a Jurisdictional Lapse, Not a Minor Mistake: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"General Issues Cannot Camouflage a Disputed Will…A Will pleaded in defence and denied by the plaintiff cannot be brushed aside – it strikes at the root of the controversy and mandates a specific issue,” Punjab and Haryana High Court

In a significant ruling reinforcing the procedural sanctity of civil trials, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 8, 2026, held that failure to frame a specific issue on a Will, when it forms the very foundation of the defence, amounts to a “material jurisdictional error”. Justice Mandeep Pannu, while deciding CR-9480-2025, declared that “the execution and validity of a Will pleaded in defence cannot be treated as an incidental matter or hidden within a general issue — the law mandates a clear and separate adjudication on such a vital plea.”

The Court was dealing with a revision petition filed by Vinod @ Vinod Kumar, the plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, who claimed inheritance of property from his deceased relative Shanti Devi. The twist came when defendants No.1 to 4, in their written statement, set up a Will dated 16.08.1978, purportedly executed by Shanti Devi in their favour, which they relied on to defeat the plaintiff’s claim of natural succession.

The trial court framed a general issue regarding the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief but failed to frame any specific issue on the Will. When the plaintiff sought framing of an additional issue on the Will under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, the trial court dismissed the application stating that “only the defendants, being the propounders of the Will, could have asked for such an issue.” The trial court further held that since the defendants had not pressed for it, the Court was under no obligation to do so.

This approach, Justice Pannu held, was legally flawed and procedurally impermissible.

"Issues are not favours to be claimed by parties – they are a Court's duty under CPC"

Justice Pannu observed that the trial court had misunderstood its statutory responsibility under Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, noting:

“A Will propounded by a defendant, which is specifically pleaded and relied upon to defeat the plaintiff’s claim of natural inheritance, constitutes a distinct and material proposition of fact and law… Once a Will is pleaded by one party and denied by the other, the Court is under a statutory obligation to frame a specific issue thereon so as to enable proper adjudication of the lis.”

The High Court was categorical in rejecting the trial court’s reasoning that only defendants could press for an issue on the Will. The judgment clarified that “any party affected by a plea raised in the pleadings is entitled to seek framing of an appropriate issue”, and that it was not only the right but the obligation of the Court to ensure all material controversies are subjected to trial.

"A disputed Will cannot hide under a general issue – procedural fairness demands specificity"

The High Court made it clear that a general issue, such as “whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for”, cannot substitute for a dedicated issue on a Will that seeks to completely negate the plaintiff's claim.

Justice Pannu emphasised that “proof of a Will is governed by special statutory requirements under the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act, and the burden to prove the Will lies squarely on its propounder”. In the absence of a specific issue, the trial itself becomes vulnerable to challenge for failing to satisfy the procedural requirements laid down by law.

The judgment notes that “any final adjudication without a specific issue on the Will would be procedurally deficient and exposed to challenge on the ground of material irregularity in the conduct of the trial.”

"Failure to Frame Issue Was a Jurisdictional Lapse, Not a Minor Mistake"

Relying on its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court held that the trial court’s refusal to frame a necessary issue amounted to “a material error of jurisdiction”.

In Justice Pannu’s words: “The impugned order suffers from a material error of jurisdiction inasmuch as the Trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it to frame a necessary and material issue, and has proceeded on an erroneous understanding of law.”

The Court clarified that even at the stage of rebuttal evidence, courts retain the power under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC to frame additional issues where necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. Procedural rigour, especially in matters involving Wills, cannot be compromised.

"Court Must Frame Issue on Will Where Disputed – It Is Not a Question of Discretion but a Question of Law"

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the civil revision petition and set aside the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pataudi. The trial court was directed to frame an additional issue specifically on:

“The validity, execution and binding effect of the Will dated 16.08.1978 propounded by defendants No.1 to 4”

The Court further directed that the suit shall proceed in accordance with law after the said issue is framed.

Procedural Clarity Reasserted – Wills Demand Specific Legal Scrutiny

This judgment serves as a pointed reminder to trial courts that specific issues cannot be skipped when the very foundation of a party’s defence or claim is a document like a Will. The legal process cannot be reduced to a battle of pleadings alone — it must allow for structured judicial enquiry on material facts and legal contentions.

As the High Court noted, “Issues are the backbone of a civil trial – and when it comes to something as substantive as a Will that displaces natural inheritance, a vague or general approach cannot be countenanced by law.”

The judgment thus reinforces not only the importance of procedural due process but also the Court’s constitutional responsibility to correct errors that undermine fair adjudication.

Date of Decision: January 8, 2026