NATHO Vs. KANWAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the C.P.C.') for setting aside order dated 17.10.1994 vide which Additional District Judge, Sonepat allowed the application filed by the non-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. during the pendency of appeal and granted them leave for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) FOR deciding whether or not the impugned order suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity or patent illegality or the learned Additional District Judge acted illegally or with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in him to decide an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., it will be useful to notice the relevant facts.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence to prove that Kanhiya Ram and Dharma Ram were co-sharers in the joint holdings of which the suit land was a part and that Dharma Ram had executed two separate sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs which were registered at S. Nos. 2655 dated 13.9.1985 and 1345 dated 12.6.1986. Likewise, Kanhiya Ram had executed two separate sale deeds in her favour and the same were entered at S.Nos. 1378 dated 12.6.1986 and 2196 dated 15.7.1987. By an order dated 16.12.1993, the learned Additional District Judge allowed her application subject to payment of costs. Thereafter, her Advocate tendered in evidence certified copy of the order passed by the High Court (Ex/DA), copy of sale deed dated 3.11.1988 (Ex/DB) and certified copy of sale deed dated 12.6.1988 (Ex/DC).