Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged order dated 13.05.2011 by which application filed by the respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC") has been allowed; 3 more additional issues have been framed in terms of Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC and the case has been remanded back to the trial Court with a direction that a report regarding the issues framed, be sent to the lower Appellate Court, within the prescribed time. In brief, the parties in this case are the children of one Sampuran Singh. In the year 1971, the petitioner migrated to Canada and for the purpose of management of his property, he appointed his mother as the attorney and thereafter, appointed his brother Jatinder Singh (respondent No. 1) as his attorney. Since respondent No. 1 was misusing the power of attorney, therefore, it was cancelled on 22.03.1995 by a registered cancellation deed. However, on coming to know that respondent No. 1, with mala fide intention, was trying to alienate one building bearing Municipal No. B -II/1553 and 1594 to Bimal Kumar, the petitioner filed the Civil Suit for permanent injunction on 14.06.1996 pertaining to the said building apprehending its sale.
(2.) IN the written statement, since the defendant had alleged that the said property has been jointly sold by the petitioner and respondent No. 1 by way of 2 registered sale deeds dated 27.10.1993, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the plaint in order to challenge the said sale deeds. The application was allowed by the trial Court on 19.02.2004 and the suit was accordingly converted from permanent injunction to declaration but the revision against that order bearing CR No. 1424 of 2004 filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed by this Court and the amendment was set aside. The petitioner had also filed another suit for declaration to challenge the decree dated 03.05.1986 and also asked for rendition of accounts. The suit was dismissed on 14.11.2009 against which the petitioner had filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondents had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 14 Rule 5 of the CPC in order to amend the written statement and for framing the additional issues. The said application has now been allowed against which the present revision petition has been filed.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the application has been allowed by the lower Appellate Court with the following observations: - "The passing of the order by the Hon'ble High Court on 28.10.2009 was not in the knowledge of the defendant/respondent and it is certainly a subsequent event. On the passing of the orders by the Hon'ble High Court, a right has been accrued to the defendant to take objections that the present suit filed on 02.08.1996, after the previous suit field on 14.06.1996 being barred by taking objections of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as well as under Section 10 CPC.";