SAT PAL Vs. SUBE SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.1991 of the trial court. By the impugned order learned trial court set aside the ex parte order against defendants 4 and 5 and permitted defendant No. 5 to file a fresh written statement. Defendant No. 4 was, however, not permitted to file fresh written statement.

(2.) SUBE Singh plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over land measuring 23 Kanals 8 Marlas as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. Case of the plaintiff was that he is in possession of the land as tenant. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the claim of the plaintiff and alleged that the plaintiff has filed this suit in conllusion with defendants 4 and 5 in order to defeat their rights in the suit for possession by way of pre- emption filed by them against defendants 3 to 5. Defendants 4 and 5 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 5 was however, shown as minor and written statement on his behalf had been filed by defendant No. 4, the petitioner herein. After some time, defendant 4 and 5 moved application for setting aside the ex parte order as they were proceeded against ex parte by the trial court by order passed on 7.5.1987. Trial Court on a consideration of the matter, allowed the application and set aside the ex parte order against the two defendants. It also allowed defendant No. 5 to file fresh written statement but defendant No. 4 was not permitted to do so in view of the fact that he had filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on a consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention has no merit. Suit land was sold by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants 4 and 5. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption. It was in that situation that Sube Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be a tenant on the land in dispute and defendants 4 and 5, the vendees admitted plaintiff's possession over the land in dispute and filed written statement admitting his claim apparently to defeat the rights of defendants 1 and 2 in the suit for possession by way of pre-emption. The trial court in all fairness has allowed the application for setting aside the ex parte order and to that extent the petitioner can have no objection. Defendant No. 5 has also been permitted to file a fresh written statement as he had been shown to be a minor. As regards defendant No. 4, the trial court declined the relief to him to the extent that he shall not be entitled to file a fresh written statement in view of the fact that he had admitted the claim in the written statement earlier filed and granting him the permission to file a fresh written statement would mean that he has been allowed to withdraw an admission earlier made. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel has misbehaved in this case, is not a ground to grant the relief to the petitioner. The petitioner could have proceeded against his counsel either by filing a complaint against his counsel or moving to the Bar Council for any action which according to him was unauthorisedly done and was illegal. The petitioner for the reasons best known to him has not chosen that course. Thus in the facts and circumstances of this case, I see no illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the trial court. The revision petition is consequently dismissed. Since the proceedings had been stayed by this Court, the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 17.8.1998. For the impugned order, it is also clear that the suit in this case was filed in the year 1983 and is pending disposal for the last 15 years, the trial court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of eight months after affording a maximum of two to three opportunities, if required, to each of the parties for their respective evidence at short intervals. No costs. Petition dismissed.