MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. - (1.) THE contour of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, Darshan Singh son of Sunder Singh and others plaintiffs (for brevity "the original plaintiffs") have instituted the civil suit (Annexure P2) against Amar Singh, Kashmira Singh ss/o Sunder Singh and others respondents -defendants (for short "the defendants") for partition of the land in dispute. Having completed all the codal formalities, ultimately, the suit of plaintiffs was dismissed by the trial Court, by way of judgment & decree dated 2.2.2006 (Annexure P4).
(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the plaintiffs filed the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, they have filed the application (Annexure P5) for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC and 2nd application for framing of additional issue. The appellate Court dismissed the indicated applications, vide impugned order dated 9.12.2013 (Annexure P1). The petitioner -appellant did not feel satisfied and has preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned order (Annexure P1), invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.;