JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral):- CM No.22198-CII of 2010 The application is allowed and certified copy of impugned order Annexure P-3 and Annexures P-4 and P-5 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case. 2. Plaintiff-Jitender Pal Singh Walia has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 25.05.2010 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon thereby dismissing application moved by plaintiff-petitioner for framing of additional issue. 3. Petitioner filed suit against respondent Nos.1 to 6 vide plaint Annexure P-4 for permanent injunction alleging that the petitioner-plaintiff is tenant under the defendants (respondent Nos.1 to 6) since January, 1994 in the building in dispute, but the defendants threatened to dispossess him forcibly therefrom. 4. On application Annexure P-1 moved by respondent No.7- Sailender Singh, he was impleaded as defendants No.7 to the suit as he along with one Anil Kumar claimed to have purchased the suit plot and other property from defendant No.6 vide sale deed dated 30.06.2004. 5. Plaintiff alleged in application for framing of additional issue that since defendant No.7 has claimed right, title or interest in the suit property, additional issue to the following effect is required to be framed:- “ Whether defendant No.7 has any right, title or interest in the suit property? OPD”. 6. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-3. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that defendant No.7 has claimed to have purchased the suit property and, therefore proposed additional issue is required to be framed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Venkata Subbamma versus Praneshachari and another, 2004(2) Civil Court Cases 614 (AP). 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. In the instant case, plaintiff-petitioner has sought permanent injunction on the basis of his possession over the suit property as tenant. Contesting defendant No.7 in his written statement Annexure P-5 has admitted the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property. Defendant No.7 alleged that only vacant plot was rented out to the plaintiff-petitioner and he has raised illegal construction thereon. Contesting defendant No.7 in his written statement Annexure P-5 has admitted the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property. Defendant No.7 alleged that only vacant plot was rented out to the plaintiff-petitioner and he has raised illegal construction thereon. However, the fact remains that according to the written statement Annexure P-5, plaintiff-petitioner is in possession of the suit property. In view thereof, the question whether defendant No.7 has any right, title or interest in the suit property or not is not required to be adjudicated in the instant suit. As mentioned earlier, this is simple suit for permanent injunction on the basis of possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, which stands admitted by the contesting defendant No.7. The question whether defendant No.7 has any right, title or interest in the suit property or not, is irrelevant for grant or refusal of the relief of permanent injunction to the plaintiff-petitioner. If the plaintiff succeeds in proving his case, he has to be granted requisite relief irrespective of whether defendant No.7 has any right, title or interest in the suit property or not. Conversely, if the plaintiff fails to prove his case, he cannot be granted any relief irrespective of whether defendant No.7 has any right, title or interest in the suit land or not. Consequently, additional issue sought to be framed does not arise for final and effective adjudication of the suit. Judgment in the case of Venkata Subbama (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. In that case, defendant claimed adverse possession and it was left to the trial Court to find out whether the issue of adverse possession was an incidental issue or substantial issue. Moreover, in the instant case, defendant No.7 has admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. So the aforesaid judgment has no applicability to the facts of the instant case. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I affirm the finding of the trial Court that proposed additional issue is not required to be framed for proper adjudication of the suit. Consequently, application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for framing of additional issue has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court warranting interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for framing of additional issue has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the trial Court warranting interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. --------------