GADDI PARAM HANS SWAMI HIRA NAND JI AND ANOTHER Vs. JOGINDER SINGH @ YOGESHWAR NAND @ JOGESHWAR NAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 24.1.2017 (Annexure P-1), vide which, respondent No.1 was allowed to file written statement in civil suit No. 2475 of 2013.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92 CPC for removal of respondent-defendant No.1 from the post/office of Mohatmimship/Mahantship Param Hans Hira Nand Puri, Nangal Bihalan, now Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiapur. The claim in the suit was also for declaration that petitioner-plaintiff No.1 was owner in possession of the properties/estate left by Swami Bodha Nand on the basis of registered Will executed on 31.7.2006, which was registered with Sub Registrar, Fatehgarh Sahib on 29.8.2006 vide Vasika number 163. The prayer was also made for declaration that Will dated 27.5.2010 executed by Swami Bodha Nand Puri Chela of Sri Sri 1008 Swami Hira Nand Puri, which was alleged to be registered vide Vasika number 61 dated 27.5.2010 was illegal, null and void ab initio and was result of fraud and fabricated document. Upon notice respondents-defendants put in apperance and filed written statement except by respondent-defendant No.1. After framing of issues, the parties had to lead their evidence. After leading evidence by the plaintiffs, the evidence was closed. Subsequently, an application was moved by respondent-defendant No.1 for filing written statement, wherein, it was mentioned that during course of the proceedings, the counsel appearing for defendant No.1 came to know that written statement had not been filed so he be allowed to place on record the written statement. The application for filing written statement was allowed vide order dated 24.1.2017, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that purpose of filing application was to delay the suit proceedings as evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs had already been closed on 26.9.2016. Thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of defendants and without examining any witness, the defendant has filed the present application, which is only a device to delay the proceedings of the present suit. Learned counsel further contends that the Court below without taking into consideration all these facts has allowed the application. He also submits that the application has been allowed subject to payment of meagre cost of Rs. 1000/-to be paid to the petitioners-plaintiffs.