RAKESH KUMAR Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants No. 1 and 2 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 27.08.2007 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 13.10.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial court.

(2.) Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed suit against the petitioners and proforma respondent No. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are sons of proforma respondent No. 3. In the suit, respondents No. 1 and 2 have challenged sale deed executed by defendant-respondent No. 3 through Attorney Kashmiri Lal, who is father of petitioners (defendant No. 1 and 2), on the basis that suit property is ancestral, joint Hindu family property and defendant No. 3 was not competent to sell the same. Defendant No. 3 filed written statement admitting claim of the plaintiffs.

(3.) However, after evidence of the plaintiffs had been closed and substantial evidence of defendants have also been recorded, defendant No. 3 moved application (Annexure P-3) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - CPC) for amendment of his written statement alleging that somebody on behalf of the other defendants i.e. defendants No. l and 2/petitioners obtained thumb impressions/signatures of defendant No. 3 on some blank papers, on which written statement on behalf of defendant No. 3 was got prepared and filed in the Court. The said amendment application was allowed by the trial court vide impugned order Annexure P-5. Defendants No. l and 2 filed application Annexure P-6 for recall of the said order. However, the said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order Annexure P-7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by defendants No. 1 and 2. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case file. No one is appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3/defendant No. 3, who could be the contesting party in the instant revision petition.