BHANWAR LAL Vs. KANHAIYA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS revision arises in some peculiar circumstances viz. that the petitioner had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against one Kanhaiya Lal way back on 21.12.81 alleging inter alia that the plaintiff owns the property purchased by him by registered sale deed dt. 10.6.1902, and since then he is continuing in possession. The plaintiff also pleaded the facts about devolution of right, title, and interest of the plaintiff. With these pleadings, it was contended that there is a lane situated in the north of the plaintiff's house. This lane is the bone of contention, inasmuch its this lane is situated in the back side of the defendant's house, wherein it is apprehended by the plaintiff, that the defendant would raise construction, and has opened some windows, whereas this lane has a public utility, and every one has a right to pass and repass through it. The defendant Kanhaiya Lal filed his written statement on 19.5.82. Thereafter the issues were framed on 16.11.90. The parties went to trial, and the plaintiff completed his evidence. As transpires from the order sheets of the learned trial court that the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 2.7.96.

(3.) THE facts relating to the problem arising in this revision start from this point of time inasmuch as on 17.1.97 the legal representatives purportedly filed a fresh written statement, purporting to file written statement to the amended plaint, and after filing of this written statement dt. 17.1.97, the learned trial court on 18.3.97 framed two additional issues, as issue No. 4A and 4B. Thereafter the case was fixed for defendant's evidence, and when the defendant (legal representative) Mahendra Kumar, D.W.1 was being examined, wanted to exhibit certain documents an objection was raised on the side of the plaintiff, whereupon the statement was reserved.