- (1.) Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Bhagwan Singh Yadav son of Raghbir Singh Yadav and Ramesh Kumar son of Radhey Shyam respondent Nos.1 and 2- plaintiffs (for brevity "the plaintiffs") filed the suit seeking a decree for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the Dharamshala in question is a gairmumkin Dharamshala and Hukam Chand and Beena Devi petitioners and other defendants (for short "the defendants") have no right, title or interest to alienate it in any manner. Since the petitioner-defendants did not appear despite service, so, exparte proceedings were ordered against them. Consequently, the main suit was decreed, by way of ex-parte judgment and decree dated 13.11.2003.
(2.) According to petitioner-defendants that when they came to know, then they moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree on the ground of their non-service in the main suit, invoking the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, in which, the trial court had framed the issues. During the pendency of the indicated proceedings, the petitioner-defendants moved an application that they be permitted to examine Mitter Sain, one of the defendants in the present case. The trial Court dismissed the application, by virtue of impugned order dated 23.5.2011 (Annexure P1).
(3.) Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the petitionerdefendants preferred the instant revision petition.;