G.C.GARG, J. - (1.) DISMISSAL of application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the written statement has given rise to this revision petition.
(2.) BHAJNA , plaintiff filed a suit for possession in respect of land measuring 16 kanals 12 marlas and 10 kanals 15 marlas on the ground that the said land had been aliened to his father in the year 1973. In paras 2 and 3 of the plaint, it was alleged that the defendants took forcible possession of the land in dispute about 5/6 months prior to the filing of the suit and their possession was, therefore, illegal and that the defendants had no interest therein. Defendants filed joint written statement. Averments made in the plaint were denied as wrong and in para 2 of the written statement it was stated thus: "para No. 2 is wrong and is denied. The defendant is neither in possession of the land in question nor he has harvested any wheat crop from the land. The suit of the plaintiff is absolutely wrong, baseless and based on false statement of facts. The plaintiff filed a suit for injunction against the defendants in respect of Killa No. 41/12/2, 13, 14, 15 and 17/2 for restraining the plaintiffs for ever. The defendants had no concern with the land. The suit was accepted on this statement of the defendants. An application under Order 21 Rule 11 C. P. C. , was filed against the defendants by the plaintiff on which the report of the Sadar Kanungo was called for as Commission who on 24. 1. 1988, reported that the possession is of the plaintiff. The defendants have not taken possession. The plaintiff had tendered additional evidence as a Decree-Holder. On 20. 7. 1988, the Court rejected the execution application. The plaintiff again filed application under Order 21 Rule 32 C. P. C. in the Civil Court against the defendants. Again, Commission was got appointed on 19. 4. 1988, Kanungo as Commissioner reported that the plaintiff is in possession who has cultivated and cut the crop. This application was also dismissed on 16. 9. 1989, by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Sangrur. Now the plaintiff has again filed a suit for possession in respect of the land. But in this suit, Khasra No. 1 is the same as was in the earlier suit which is Khasra No. 17/2. In fact, the land of the plaintiff and the defendants are adjacent. The plaintiff is in the wrong impression that the defendants have encroached upon any part of his land. The plaintiff may got this land measured by getting the Commission appointed by the Court at any time. The defendants are neither at all in possession of any part of land of the plaintiff nor have any concern with his land. The defendants tendered in evidence report dated 24. 1. 1988 of the Local Commissioner, order dated 20. 7. 1988 of the Executing Court, report dated 19. 4. 1989, passed in case under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC".
(3.) DURING the pendency of the above suit, the petitioners filed two separate suits against Bhajana, plaintiff of this suit, in respect of the same land including the land in dispute in the above suit, for permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Learned Senior Subordinate Judge, ordered the parties to maintain status quo as to possession by order dated February 1, 1991. 5. On February 5, 1991, the defendant-petitioners in proceedings under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. made a statement that they will not interfere in the suit land which was in possession of the plaintiff. An order was accordingly passed. This order is subject matter of Civil Revision No. 1518 of 1991. 6. In the above situation and after realising the mistake committed, the petitioners moved an application seeking amendment of the written statement dated September 26, 1989. The prayer was for substitution of paras 2 and 3 in the earlier written statement with following paras: "para No. 2 of the plaint is wrong and is denied. The suit land has neither been allotted to the plaintiff nor the plaintiff is in possession of the same.;