- (1.) Defendants No. 1 to 4 including legal representatives of defendants No. 2 and 4 have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 02.04.2010 Annexure P-7 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana thereby dismissing application filed by petitioners for amendment of written statement during pendency of first appeal preferred by them. Suit was filed by respondent No. 1-Darbara Singh against petitioners and respondent No. 2-Manjit Singh as defendant No. 5 claiming joint possession of land measuring 1 bigha 4 biswas 10 biswans is pukhta equivalent to 3700 square yards out of khasra No. 384/17 measuring 2 bighas 5 biswas 15 biswansis pukhta along with ancillary relief of injunction etc. alleging that defendants No. 1 to 4 are in unauthorized possession of the suit land which fell to the share of the plaintiff in partition.
(2.) Suit of the plaintiff stands decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 20.04.2006 Annexure P-3. Petitioners have filed appeal against said judgment and consequent decree of the trial court. During pendency of the first appeal, defendants moved application Annexure P-6 for amendment of written statement. By way of amendment, the petitioners want to plead that plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land and in fact Khasra No. 384/17 is non-existent. Besides it, Darbara Singh, present plaintiff and Banta Singh has filed Civil Suit No. 470 dated 24.11.1989 decided on 12.01.1996 to which Harbhajan Singh predecessor in interest of defendants No. 1 to 4 herein, was also party. The said suit was dismissed after hot contest and first appeal was also dismissed holding that Darbara Singh had failed to produce any document on the judicial file that prior to partition, he was in possession of khasra No. 384 out of which khasra No. 384/17 was bifurcated in partition. Other findings of the said suit are also sought to be pleaded. Consequent bar of res judicata is sought to be taken. Defence relating to provisions of Sections 121 and 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act is also sought to be raised. It is also to be pleaded that actual physical possession of the land in question was never given to any of the parties pursuant to partition and only symbolic possession was given. Plea of estoppel is also sought to be raised against the plaintiff on the basis of concealment of material facts.
(3.) Amendment application was opposed by the plaintiff.;