- (1.) CONCISELY , the relevant facts which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record are that, initially Basu Ram son of Prabh Dayal -plaintiff -respondent No.1(for brevity the plaintiff ) has instituted the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Amar Singh son of Telu Ram (since deceased) now being represented through his LRs petitioners Raj Dulari & others and other defendants(for short the defendants ) from interfering into his peaceful possession over the suit land. Amar Singh -defendant No.1, husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 had died on 30.07.2009. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application(Annexure P -1) for impleading them as his LRs on 25.01.2010.
(2.) HAVING completed the evidence of the plaintiff, the case was slated for evidence of the defendants for the first time at their own responsibility to 02.03.2010 by the trial Court, by virtue of order dated 17.02.2010. The trial Court instead of deciding the application(Annexure P -1) to implead the petitioners as LRs of Amar Singh -defendant No.1 (since deceased), straightway jumped to close their evidence in a routine manner and by means of very brief impugned order dated 24.05.2010 (Annexure P -3).
(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the petitioners have preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. During the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court(Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.) passed the following order on May 28, 2010: - The petitioners who are claiming themselves legal representatives of defendant No.1 Amar Singh have approached this Court by way of present revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 24.5.2010 whereby Civil Judge(Junior Division) Panchkula, has closed the evidence of the defendants by order of the Court. Challenging the aforesaid order, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the petitioners who are yet to be brought on record of the case after the death of their father cannot be said to have been given effective opportunities for producing their evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that unless and until the petitionerapplicants are ordered to be brought on record of the case as legal representatives of defendant No.1, they have no right to bring the evidence on record and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are entitled to defend their case by producing their evidence. Notice of motion for 11.8.2010. Further proceedings before the trial Court are stayed. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.;