MOHINDRO ALIAS MOHINDER KAUR Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second appeal from order by plaintiff Mohindro @ Mohinder Kaur. Her suit was decreed by trial court i.e. learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti vide judgment and decree dated 27.1.2004. Defendants no. 1 to 3 (respondents nos. 1 to 3 herein) preferred first appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court. In the first appeal, plaintiff, who was respondent no. 1 in the first appeal, moved application for amendment of plaint to add 143 kanals 19 marlas land in the plaint in addition to the land already mentioned in the plaint. Lower appellate court vide order dated 18.2.2005 allowed the said application for amendment of plaint. Thereupon defendant nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement to amended plaint. The plaintiff moved application in the lower appellate court for deletion of new pleas taken by defendants no. 1 to 3 in their written statement to amended plaint, which did not relate to amended part of the plaint. When the said application came up for consideration before the lower appellate court, it was observed by the lower appellate court that the suit required de novo trial and evidence was required regarding newly added land in the plaint. Accordingly, lower appellate court left the matter of deletion of new pleas from the written statement of defendants no. 1 to 3 to the trial court and vide impugned judgment dated 2.9.2009, the lower appellate court i.e. learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (Adhoc), Tarn Taran remanded the suit to trial court for fresh decision. Plaintiff has filed this SAO No. 48 of 2009 against said judgment of the lower appellate court.

(2.) AFTER remand of the suit, the trial court vide order dated 31.3.2010 dismissed the aforesaid application of the plaintiff for deleting part of written statement to the amended plaint, which did not relate to amended part of the plaint. Plaintiff has filed Civil Revision No. 2722 of 2010 assailing said order dated 31.3.2010 of the trial court, Annexure P/1 in the revision petition. The said revision petition shall also stand disposed of by this common judgment.

(3.) THE contention has been controverted by counsel for the respondents by contending that there had to be de-novo trial of the suit because the defendants had to file written statement to the amended plaint and the entire process of trial court had to be gone through.