RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed by the petitioners / plaintiffs is directed against the order dated 27.04.2011 whereby his three applications preferred under 8 Rule 1 C.P.C dated 03.11.2010 (Annexure P/6), application dated 25.11.2010 preferred under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C (Annexure P/7) and another application dated 22.03.2011 (Annexure P/8) are disallowed. By the same impugned order, the applications preferred by the defendants under Order 8 Rule 1 C.P.C (Annexure P/9) dated 25.11.2010 and application dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P/10) are allowed.

(2.) During the course of argument, it is canvassed that defendant witness No.3 Aman Singh entered the witness box. He deposed that he is resident of village Imaliya. The stand of the petitioner / plaintiff is that he does not reside in the said village and to prove this, the said applications were filed. Along with the said application, voter list of village Imaliya, sale deed and residence proof etc, were filed. The defendants filed an application Annexuer P/9. Along with the said application, a Khasra entry is filed to show that Aman Singh still has some piece of land at Imaliya. In addition, with Annexure P/10 no dues certificate and voter list are filed to show that Aman Singh is still a resident of Imaliya.

(3.) In the aforesaid factual backdrop, it is seen that parties have taken a diametrically opposite stand on the question regarding the residence of Aman Singh at Imaliya. The Court below has allowed the application of the defendants which contains some documents to show that he is resident of Imaliya whereas applications of petitioners were rejected on the ground that said applications are belatedly filed and if the same are allowed, the case may be required to be reopened from a particular stage. Learned counsel for the parties advanced their arguments for and against the said order.