- (1.) The defendant is before this court against the order dated 2.5.2011, passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by him under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC for closing the evidence of respondent No. 1-plaintiff was dismissed. Vide same order, the application filed by respondent No. 2 for her substitution as plaintiff in the suit was also allowed. In the present petition, the challenge is only to the part of the order pertaining to the rejection of application under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. Part of the order referable to Order 22 Rule 10 CPC regarding substitution of the plaintiff, being appealable, is under challenge before the learned lower appellate court.
(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the ground floor of House No. 1126, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh was let out to Bank of Punjab Limited by respondent No. 1 vide agreement dated 24.10.1997 on a monthly rent of 7,500/-. It was meant to be used by the employees of the bank only. The lease was specific for stay of the petitioner-defendant, who was the then employee of the bank. The lease was to be terminated immediately after the petitioner-defendant leaves the services of the bank. An agreement to sell was executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 on 25.4.2005 and entire sale consideration was received by him. It is alleged in the agreement to sell that possession of one room over the garage was delivered to the vendee.
(3.) On 21.7.2005, a civil suit was filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner for permanent/perpetual injunction restraining him from obstructing access to room on the first floor of the garage. Along with the suit, an application for interim injunction was also filed. The trial court, vide order dated 22.3.2006, restrained the petitioner from interfering into the ingress and outgress of respondent No. 1 and also from locking the main gate of the house in question. The order of interim injunction was upheld in appeal by the first appellate court vide order dated 1.12.2006. The petitioner preferred Civil Revision No. 1265 of 2007 in this court. The order was upheld with slight modification that only respondent No. 1 and his close family members were entitled to the benefit of interim relief. The revision petition was disposed of on 16.9.2010. After the decision of the aforesaid civil revision by this court, the petitioner filed an application before the court below for preponement of the date of hearing, which was accepted vide order dated 1.12.2010 and the date was preponed to 20.12.2010, which was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff granting him last opportunity on 5.1.2011. On 8.2.2011, the court recorded that in case the plaintiff's evidence is not led, the same shall be deemed closed. However, it is noticed in that very order that the plaintiff wants to place on record copy of the sale deed and power of attorney of the person, who had stepped into the shoes of the plaintiff, whereas counsel for the defendant stated that he would like to address arguments on the application for amendment. The case was adjourned to 1.3.2011. It was on that day that application was filed by the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC that the case be proceeded further on the basis of deemed closer of evidence of the plaintiff. On that very day, an application was filed by respondent No. 2 under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC for her substitution as plaintiff. Both the applications were disposed of by the court below vide impugned order dated 2.5.2011.;