PRAHLAD Vs. CHANDRA BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.N. Bhargava, assisted by Sri Vishnu Pandey, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, and, Sri D.K. Srivastava, Sri H.K. Singh and Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsels for the plaintiffs-respondents No.1, 3, 4 & 5.

(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Contitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 13.08.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Bhadohi, Gyanpur in Civil Appeal No.45 of 2015 whereby the Application being Paper No.40-C filed by the defendants-petitioners for additional evidence for getting handwriting expert report on the alleged partition deed dated 31.12.1969, was rejected. Facts of the Case:-

(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that contesting respondent/plaintiff Sri Chandrabhan filed O.S. No.300 of 1999 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhadohi on 18.05.1999 to seek relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-petitioners with respect to Khasra Plot No.446 measuring 6 biswas 17 dhoor situate in village Khamhriya. In paragraph-2 of the plaint he stated that he is the Sankramniya Bhoomidhar of the aforesaid Khasra Plot No.446. A written statement dated 19.08.1999 was filed by the defendants-petitioners. In paragraph-9 of the written statement, the defendants-petitioners stated that during consolidation, Khasra Plot No.446 was made in the name of father of the contesting respondent/plaintiff and Khasra Plot No.443 was made in the name of predecessors of the defendants-petitioners and since they were belonging to one and the same family and as such, they entered into an agreement dated 31.12.1969 as per which both the plots were divided in four parts and a portion was given to the father of the contesting respondent/plaintiff. Initially six issues were framed in the aforesaid suit on 12.09.2000. Subsequently, the defendants-petitioners moved an Application 140-C for framing one more issue. On the aforesaid Application, the issue No.7 was framed. Subsequently, when the suit was at the argument stage, the defendants-petitioners filed another Application 163-C to amend the issue No.7 by mentioning the date of alleged compromise agreement as 31.12.1969 instead of 01.12.1969. The said Application was also allowed and the issue No.7 was, accordingly, amended as under: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_12_LAWS(ALL)9_2017.jpg</IMG>