RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rajesh Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Meerut dated 22.9.2009 by which the application of the revisionist under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "C.P.C.") has been rejected. The respondents filed a suit for ejectment of the revisionist. In the plaint, it has been alleged that the respondents are owners of the property in dispute. The revisionist filed the written statement. The evidences from both the sides have been laid and thereafter the hearing has started. The Additional District Judge, Meerut in its order stated that the hearing of the plaintiffs has been concluded and after the hearing of plaintiffs being concluded, the revisionist filed an application under Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for raising certain queries and seeking reply from the plaintiffs. By the impugned order, the said application has been rejected. It appears that the application has been moved on the ground that the revisionist came to know that the land on which the shop was constructed was a Banjer land and, therefore, in view of the provision of Section 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the land is vested to the Gaon Sabha and the plaintiffs are not owners of the land in dispute which has been let out to the revisionist. The trial court held that in the written statement the defendant has admitted that the plaintiffs are the landlords. The suit is pending since 2000. The written statement has been filed and the evidences have been laid. The argument of the plaintiffs has been concluded but just to delay the matter, the present application has been filed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist submitted that the object of Order 11 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. is to cut short the litigation. He submitted that after filing the written statement and during the course of hearing it came to the knowledge of the revisionist that the land was recorded as a Banjer land in the revenue record and, therefore, in view of the Section 117 of the Act the land was vested to the Gaon Sabha and the plaintiffs ceases to be the owners of the land in dispute and, therefore, the present application has been moved. In case, if on a query being made this factual aspect comes on record, the suit of the plaintiffs could not be maintainable. In support of the contention, he relied upon the the decision of Jammu and Kashmir, High Court in the case of Jugal Raj Gandotra and another v. Yashpal Sahni and another, reported in AIR 1999 Jammu and Kashmir-21 and decision of Orissa High Court in the case of Bhakta Charan Mallik v. Nataorar Mallik and others, reported in AIR 1991 Orissa-319.;