BHAGAT RAM Vs. GURMEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff appellants' vainly attempt in second appeal to raise the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC filed on 31.05.2013 like a phoenix from the ashes after losing two bouts of litigation in the lower Courts by putting forth an argument that the learned trial Court failed to pass a specific order Order 6, Rule 17 CPC and left it hanging and the fault can be cured only by remand. In that application, the plaintiff-appellant prayed that he may be allowed to amend his plaint dated 19.03.2009. Four years had passed by the time the application was filed. And to make matter worse for the appellants they had appeared as their own witness and stepped in to depose in the trial Court on 07.08.2013. The testimony was recorded 2 1/2 months after the application was filed and this amounted to waiver of right to claim an order on the application.

(2.) In opposition to the claim in the eviction petition, the defendants-appellants had put in their written statement of defence on 16.05.2009 and the issues were struck by the trial Court on 10.08.2011 of which the central defence was that the suit was barred by limitation. In the suit was challenged the sale deed of the year 1977. In the original suit, the plaintiffs did not plead when they had knowledge of the sale deed and this was a serious lacuna which is sought to be fill and introduce in the plaint by an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC. The trial Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation since the maintainability of suit could only be established by legal evidence or accurate pleading of the date of knowledge of sale deed to save him from limitation.

(3.) Not satisfied with the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs carried an appeal to the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, which failed on 04.08.2016 against which this appeal has been filed.