Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) TERSENESSLY , the facts, which need a necessary mention, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record are, that Om Parkash alias Hari Singh son of Balu Singh and others respondent Nos. 1 to 4 -plaintiffs (for brevity "the plaintiffs") filed the suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of declaration to the effect that the mutation bearing No. 6494 dated 8.10.2005, in pursuance of the sale deed dated 19.9.2005, is null and void abinitio, with a consequential relief of permanent/prohibitory injunction, restraining M/s R.P.S. Associates Ltd. petitioner defendant No. 1 and others proforma respondents No. 5 to 10 -defendants No. 2 to 7 (for short "the defendants"), from changing the nature of the suit land from agriculture to urban land or raising any construction over it till the time it is duly partitioned by metes and bounds between the parties and from taking possession of any specific portion/khasra number, on the basis of indicated illegal mutation. The case set up by the plaintiffs, in brief in so far as relevant, was that they arc co -owners/co -sharers in possession of the land in dispute. It was claimed that defendant Nos. 2 to 7 have sold their respective shares, out of the joint land in litigation, without partition, to petitioner -defendant No. 1, by virtue of sale deed dated 19.9.2005. The Khasra number and dimensions of the disputed land were stated to have been wrongly described in the sale deed and an illegal mutation has been entered, in pursuance thereof, which were claimed to be null and void. It was alleged that in the garb of said wrong mutation, defendant No. 1 intends to possess the front land, which is more fertilized, having more potential and value, without any legal right, in order to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs -cosharers in the suit land.
(2.) LEVELLING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiffs that the land in dispute is a joint property of all the co -owners and they are in its joint possession. Defendant Nos. 2 to 7 have sold their respective shares to defendant No. 1, without any partition and it (defendant No. 1) illegally got entered/sanctioned the mutation and Tatima, in respect of specific khasra numbers, without any legal basis in collusion with the revenue staff, which were termed to be illegal, void and in operative on their (plaintiffs) rights. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of declaration, permanent/prohibitory injunction against the defendants in the manner depicted hereinbefore. The main defendant No. 1 contested the suit and filed its written statement (Annexure P3), inter -alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, estoppel, non -joinder & mis -joinder of necessary parties, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiffs etc. On merits, defendant No. 1 pleaded that its vendors (defendant Nos. 2 to 7) have sold their suit land, within the limits of their respective shares and put the vendees in its possession thereof. There is a clear recital in the sale deed that all the co -sharers have orally partitioned the land and were in exclusive possession of their respective shares. Defendant No. 1 alleged that defendant Nos. 2 to 7 have sold their specific portion/killa numbers to it, by means of registered sale deed dated 19.9.2005 and mutation was rightly sanctioned in this respect. It will not be out of place to mention here that defendant No. 1 has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Similarly, the remaining defendant Nos. 2 to 7 have filed their separate joint written statement (Annexure P4), toeing the line of pleadings as contained in the written statement of defendant No. 1.
(3.) SEQUELLY , during the pendency of the suit, defendant No. 1 moved an application (Annexure P5) for amendment of written statement (Annexure P3) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, so as to add the preliminary objection No. 7 -A in the following manner: - That after the purchase of the suit land and other land, defendant No. 1 applied to obtain licence for setting up of a Group Housing Colony at village Kheri Kalan and Baselwa, District Faridabad and accordingly, licence No. 1030 of 2006 was granted under the Haryana Development & Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and Rules 1976 made thereunder to defendant No. 1 C/o M/s RIS Infrastructure Ltd. B -14, Ground Floor, Chirag Enclave, Opposite Nehru Place, New Delhi - - 48 for setting up a New Group Housing Colony at village Kheri Kalan and Baselwa, Faridabad in respect of suit land and other lands as mentioned in the schedule annexed with the licence and according to the licence, defendant No. 1 has been raising and has raised Group Housing Colony as per site plan enclosed regarding which licence was granted. The defendant No. 1 has spent a huge amount for selling up of Group Housing Colony over the suit land and other land at Village Kheri Kalan and Baselwa, Faridabad and in these circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek equitable relief of injunction and hence, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. ";