HARPAL SINGH DHILLON Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Apoorva Tiwari, learned counsel for plaintiff/lessors and Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants/lessee, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.

(2.) Lis with regard to property and parties being same, both petitions were clubbed earlier by orders of this Court and are therefore being decided by this common judgment.As per admitted facts, plaintiff/lessors filed Regular Suit No.167 of 2009 of property in question along with prayer for recovery of damages for use and occupation against defendants at market rate. Defendants filed their written statement on 30.06.2009 in which pecuniary jurisdiction of court concerned was challenged. Subsequently issues were framed on 15.02.2010 in which issue no.4 pertained to pecuniary jurisdiction of court concerned which was decided as a preliminary issue in favour of plaintiffs vide order dated 29.01.2011, which became final since no challenge to it was made. Thereafter, evidence of plaintiff-witness 1 started on 15.02.2011. On same date, defendants filed an application for framing of additional issue with regard to jurisdiction of court concerned to hear the suit. Objections dated 01.03.2011 were filed by plaintiff(s) objecting to framing of additional issues on ground that no plea with regard to jurisdiction had been taken in written statement. Said application was rejected by means of order dated 25.10.2011 primarily on the ground that no such pleading regarding jurisdiction of court had been taken in written statement. Civil Revision No.169 of 2012 against order dated 25.10.2011 was dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2012 on the ground that revision against such an order was not maintainable, against which Writ Petition No. 843(M/S) of 2013 has been filed.

(3.) In the meantime, after rejection of application for framing of additional issues vide order dated 25.10.2011, defendants filed an application dated 30.01.2012 for amendment of written statement, particularly paragraph 4 to indicate that suit was barred in terms of Section 29-A of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. Objections to said application were filed by plaintiffs on 01.03.2012. Vide order dated 27.08.2012, application for amendment of written statement was allowed and Civil Revision No.270 of 2012 was also rejected by means of order dated 11.10.2012, against which Writ Petition No. 40(M/S) of 2013 has been filed.