RAM PAL Vs. HOSHIAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the District Judge, Una on 26th June, 1992 allowing the application of the Plaintiffs/Respondents seeking permission to amend the plaint is under challenge in this civil revision by the Defendants.

(2.) In order to appreciate the arguments, which have been addressed at the Bar, it will be necessary to give some background of the case. On 2nd November, 1981, a suit was filed by the Plaintiffs/Respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Plaintiffs') against the Petitioners and Respondents No. 4 to 7 claiming decree for mandatory injunction directing the Petitioners and Respondents No. 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Defendants') to demolish the construction alleged to have been raised by them on the southern part of Khasra No. 1296 abutting Una-Bangana Road. Decree for prohibitory injunction was also claimed restraining the Defendants from raising any further construction till partition. It was alleged that the suit property was jointly owned and possessed by the parties. Taking undue advantage of the closure of Civil Courts, the Defendants with a view to grab valuable portion of the land forcibly commenced construction by deploying considerable labour and were successful in raising the construction for which they had no right. The Defendants being co-owner could not change the nature of the suit property in any manner whatsoever. Simultaneously, application for temporary injunction was made, in which interim injunction was granted by the Court. Suit was contested by the Defendants, who admitted that Plaintiff No. 3 and Defendants No. 1 to 5 alone were joint owner, but denied that they were in joint possession. It was claimed that the Defendants have been in exclusive Hissadari possession of their share and were entitled to raised construction. The suit was ultimately dismissed by the trial Court on 20th August, 1985.

(3.) On the same day, the Plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal and simultaneously obtained an order of injunction of status quo. The appeal ultimately was dismissed by the Appeal Court on 16th August, 1988. Instead of carrying the matter in further appeal, the Plaintiffs sought review of the judgment by preferring review petition on 22nd August, 1988. The District Judge, Una through his judgment dated 14th November, 1988 allowed the review petition holding that the judgment and decree of dismissal of appeal deserved to be reviewed. As a consequence thereto, judgment and decree of dismissal of appeal was recalled. The appeal was ordered to be restored to file.