SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. AVINASH MOHINDRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners/plaintiffs seek setting aside of order dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amritsar, whereby petitioners have been directed to cross-examine DW9-Kanav Khanna prior to cross-examination by the other defendants.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that petitioners herein have filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Petitioners seek a declaration to the effect that they are owners of the suit property as described in the plaint by virtue of two registered sale deeds and on the basis of mutations sanctioned thereafter. It is pleaded that the property in question had been purchased by plaintiffs from one Smt.Usha. Defendants/respondents no.2 to 4 are pleaded to be tenants in the suit property, the tenancy being created by Purshottam Dass as proprietor of M/s. Ravi Dyeing and Printing and Finishing Works. After death of Purshottam Dass, Smt. Usha is stated to have inherited the property and become its lawful owner.

(3.) Written statement on behalf of defendant no.1 Avinash Mohindru and defendant no.5 Sudarshan Sewa Trust through its Chairman Avinash Mohindru was filed, taking a specific stand that Purshottam Dass had donated the property in question to the defendant-Trust and that Smt. Usha had no right to transfer the property. It is further pleaded that a portion of the property was under tenancy of defendants no.2 to 4 and that these defendants are instrumental in institution of the suit against the Trust. Defendant no.2 is stated to be in huge arrears of rent and stated to have contemplated grabbing the property by approaching Smt. Usha daughter of Purshottam Dass and a conspiracy was hatched, thereby Madan Arora, father of Kanav Khanna (DW9) was appointed attorney of Smt. Usha Bhatia. Mutation of the land is alleged to have been secured in favour of Smt. Usha Bhatia and property sold by use of fictitious and collusive sale deeds.