SH. MOHINDER SINGH Vs. ADITYA AND OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.9.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Case No. 124 -1 of 10/03. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 has filed a suit for declaration that he and proforma respondents are owners in possession of suit land, more specifically described in the plaint. The entries showing Hakam as absolute owner in possession is wrong, illegal. The respondent No. 1 had filed the suit through his mother, claiming himself to be a minor. The issues were framed on 27.8.2003. The respondent No. 1 failed to adduce even a single witness and his evidence was closed by the Court on 18.12.2004.

(2.) ON 18.12.2004 itself an application under Order 32 Rules 9, 10, 11 read with section 151 CPC was filed by respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 moved another application under Order 32 rule 12 CPC on 23.10.2006 and pleaded that he had attained majority on 12.8.2006, no reply was filed by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has placed on record some copies of orders passed by learned trial Court from time to time. On 18.12.2004 the evidence of plaintiff was closed by the order of the Court. It has also been observed in the order dated 18.12.2004 that an application under Order 32 rules 9, 10, 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been filed. The order dated 23.10.2006 indicates that plaintiff filed another application under Order 32 rule 12 read with Section 151 CPC. The trial Court vide order dated 3.10.2007 (wrongly mentioned 3.10.2006) allowed the application under Order 32 rule 12 CPC. The mother and natural guardian of plaintiff was discharged. In the said order, it was observed that date of birth of the petitioner was 12.8.1988. The plaintiff has attained majority. The application under Order 32 rules, 9, 10, 11 CPC has become infructuous, hence dismissed, even though on 7.9.2006, this application was permitted to be withdrawn. On 13.11.2007, plaintiff moved an application under Section 114 read with Section 151 CPC for reviewing the order dated 18.12.2004. This application has been allowed by learned trial Court on 19.9.2012.