- (1.) Defendants no. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 08.12.2011 (Annexure P-9) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-7) moved by defendants no. 1 to 5 (petitioners and proforma respondent no. 2 herein) for amendment of their written statement. Respondent no. 1 (plaintiff no. 2) and her mother Raj Kumari - plaintiff no. 1 (since deceased and represented by respondent no. 1) filed suit against petitioners and proforma respondent no. 2 as defendants no. 1 to 5 and General Public (proforma respondent no. 3) as defendant no. 6. In the said suit, defendants no. 1 to 5 i.e. petitioners and proforma respondent no. 2 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiffs and also made statement to the same effect in the trial court. However, later on, proforma respondents no. 4 and 5 herein were impleaded as defendants no. 7 and 8 to the suit, on application moved by them. They are contesting the suit.
(2.) Defendants no. 1 to 5 moved application (Annexure P-7) for amendment of written statement, alleging that plaintiffs took them to an Advocate, stating that all of them have to be declared having 1/7th share each in the suit property and accordingly, plaintiffs themselves engaged counsel on behalf of defendants no. 1 to 5 also and obtained their signatures on written statement and also on some statement made in the trial court on 29.09.2004 itself. Defendants no. 1 to 5 were under the impression that their signatures had been obtained to declare them owners in possession of the suit house to the extent of 1/7th share each, but now, they have learnt that written statement was filed on their behalf admitting the claim of the plaintiffs to be exclusive owners of the suit house. Accordingly, defendants no. 1 to 5, by withdrawing the earlier written statement, sought to file a completely new and different written statement contesting the suit of the plaintiffs. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order Annexure P-9, which is under challenge in this revision petition at the hands of defendants no. 1, 2, 4 and 5.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.;