Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.— Heard Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Agra Development Authority. Petitioner has been subsequently added as plaintiff No.4 in O.S. No.423 of 1989, Vinod Kumar Agawal and two others Vs. Agra Development Authority, Agra. Petitioner applied for being impleaded and his application was allowed in 2008. Prayer in the original plaint was for passing a decree declaring notice dated 17.03.1989 given to the original plaintiffs by defendant, Agra Development Authority under Section 27 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 illegal, null and void. Relief for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought seeking to restrain the defendant from demolishing the property in suit, which was in the form of shops No.5, 6 & 7, situate in North Vijai Nagar Colony, Agra. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1992, the property was vacated by the original plaintiffs and defendant Agra Development Authority allotted the same to the petitioner under hire-purchase agreement. Issues had been framed on 03.07.2000, i.e. much before petitioner was impleaded as plaintiff No.4 in the suit. Petitioner filed an application praying that some more issues be framed and three proposed issues were also mentioned. The trial court/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.3, Agra through order dated 05.01.2012 refused to frame the additional issues. Against the said order, petitioner filed Civil Revision No.10 of 2012. A.D.J., Court No.1, Agra dismissed the revision on 18.03.2013, hence this writ petition. In the order dated 05.01.2012, it is mentioned that earlier an order had been passed on 16.09.2008 to the effect that no additional issue was required to be framed. The trial court further held that application for framing additional issues had been filed at quite a late stage when evidence was going on. The revisional court thoroughly discussed the issues already framed and held that from the perusal of the pleadings no other issue was required to be framed. On enquiry from court, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner plaintiff had got temporary injunction in his favour. This appears to be the main attraction for delaying the proceedings. The lower revisional court held that issues regarding validity of the notice as to whether plaintiff was valid allottee or not had already been framed as issues No.1 & 2. This appears to be the main attraction for delaying the proceedings. The lower revisional court held that issues regarding validity of the notice as to whether plaintiff was valid allottee or not had already been framed as issues No.1 & 2. The three further issues requested to be framed by the plaintiff are contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The issues are to the effect that: (i) As to whether shops No.5, 6 & 7 had been allotted under hire-purchase scheme during pendency of the suit in 1992 and advance money had also been received by the defendant No.2. (ii) As to whether the area of each shop allotted to the plaintiff No.4/petitioner is 21.34 square meter including verandah. (iii) As to whether the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff No.4 are in relation to the shops in the present form/shop. I do not find least error in the impugned orders. The entire controversy is already covered by the original issues. Through the new proposed issues on the one hand controversy was sought to be widened and on the other hand prayer was made extremely late and only to enjoy the benefit of temporary injunction order indefinitely. On 16.09.2008 an order had already been passed to the effect that no new issue was required to be framed. The said order was not challenged and after about four years three additional issues were requested to be framed. Accordingly, I do not find any error in the impugned orders. Writ Petition is dismissed. As the suit is very old hence the trial court shall make all efforts to decide the suit very expeditiously preferably before the end of the year 2013. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment in any form shall be granted to any of the parties. _____________