MATHURA Vs. DEVI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 12-2-1996 passed by Sub-Judge Ist Class, Sundernagar, District Mandi, H.P. By means of impugned order, application under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure filed by the Petitioners, has been rejected.

(2.) In order to properly appreciate the respective submissions, a few facts relevant for determination of this revision need to be noticed. Petitioner No. 1 purchased 1 bigha 11 biswas and 3 biswansi of land, hereinafter referred to as the suit land, from Smt Fagni Devi Petitioner No. 2. This sale has been questioned by Devi Ram and four Ors. arrayed as Respondents No. 1 to 5 in this revision, who before the trial Court filed a suit for declaration and possession by way of ejectment of a part of this land In this suit issues were framed as far back as on 23-8-1994 and Respondents No. 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiffs) have concluded their evidence as on 6-17-1994. Record of the case shows that the case was listed for the evidence of the Petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Defendants) on 22-4-1995 and thereafter on 8-6-1995 when on both these occasions, no evidence on their behalf was present nor any such evidence had been brought by the Defendants. Similarly, list of witnesses as required under Order 16, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also not filed Instead on 8-6-1995 an application under Order 14, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure was filed which was finally disposed of on 16-8-1995 when Issues No. 6 and 8 were re-cast. Since the onus on these issues was placed upon the Plaintiffs, the case was adjourned for the said purpose. On 5-9-1993 itself on a prayer having been made on behalf of the Defendants, case was adjourned to 25-9-1995 for filing an application for amendment of written statement, such an application was filed on 20-10 1995 and by means of impugaed order, the said application has been rejected. Threefold prayer was made in the application for amendment of written statement.

(3.) Existing preliminary objection No. 3 was proposed to be substituted with the following effect;