RAM KUMAR Vs. MADAN LAL TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 5866 of 2005 and Civil Revision No. 5867 of 2005 involving common question of law and facts. However, for facility of reference, facts have been taken from Civil Revision No. 5866 of 2005.

(2.) The facts leading to the present revision are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit challenging the validity of registered Will dated 5.10.1972 in favour of petitioner-defendant No. l. The plaintiff-respondent field an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint in order to challenge the decree dated 20.7.1991 passed against petitioner No. 1 and in favour of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 and also sought pleading (impleading ?) of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 in the suit. The aforesaid application was allowed by the trial court. The said order was challenged by the present petitioners by taking a plea that the plaintiff-respondent was an imposer and had no right in the suit land. It was claimed that he was son of Sita Ram, who was the husband of Shakuntala and not the son of Kailasho Devi as alleged by him. It was further pleaded by the petitioner-defendants that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable as no relief of possession was prayed for.

(3.) The plaintiff-respondent thereafter filed another application on 13.1.2004 praying for amendment of the plaint. Alongwith this application, another application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. was also moved by him seeking framing of additional issues. In the application, the plaintiff had sought an amendment of the plaint by seeking to declare him as owner in joint possession of suit land and further sought amendment in the prayer clause. He also sought framing of issues afresh in the following terms: