Vinod K.Sharma, J. - (1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision No. 5866 of 2005 and Civil Revision No. 5867 of 2005 involving common question of law and facts. However, for facility of reference, facts have been taken from Civil Revision No. 5866 of 2005.
(2.) The facts leading to the present revision are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit challenging the validity of registered Will dated 5.10.1972 in favour of petitioner-defendant No. l. The plaintiff-respondent field an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of plaint in order to challenge the decree dated 20.7.1991 passed against petitioner No. 1 and in favour of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 and also sought pleading (impleading ?) of petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 in the suit. The aforesaid application was allowed by the trial court. The said order was challenged by the present petitioners by taking a plea that the plaintiff-respondent was an imposer and had no right in the suit land. It was claimed that he was son of Sita Ram, who was the husband of Shakuntala and not the son of Kailasho Devi as alleged by him. It was further pleaded by the petitioner-defendants that the plaintiff-respondent was not in possession of the suit land. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable as no relief of possession was prayed for.
(3.) The plaintiff-respondent thereafter filed another application on 13.1.2004 praying for amendment of the plaint. Alongwith this application, another application under Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. was also moved by him seeking framing of additional issues. In the application, the plaintiff had sought an amendment of the plaint by seeking to declare him as owner in joint possession of suit land and further sought amendment in the prayer clause. He also sought framing of issues afresh in the following terms: 1. Whether Smt. Kailasho Devi now deceased the mother and Smt. Kalawati defendant No. 2 being the daughters are natural legal heirs of Smt. Chhohari Bai widow of Mam Chand deceased, if so, to what effect? OPP 2. If issue No. 2 is proved, whether the plaintiff is the son of Kailasho Devi daughter of Smt. Chhohari Bai and entitled to succeed to her estate, if so to what effect and to what extent? OPP 3. If issue No. 1 and 2 are proved, whether Smt. Chhohari Bai deceased executed a valid and genuine Will dated 29.7.1972/5.10.1972 in favour of defendant No. 1, if so, to what effect? OPP 4. In case the issue No. 3, is not proved, whether the mutation No. 770 dated 11.8.1982 sanctioned on the basis of impugned Will dated 5.10.1972 and also the jamabandi prepared on the basis of said mutation are illegal, null and void and liable to be corrected as prayed for in the plaintiff (plaint?)? OPP 5. Whether the judgment and decree both dated 20.7.1991 suffered by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 to 5 in civil Suit No. 292 of 1991 and the mutation No. 1025 dated...sanctioned thereon and the jamabandi for the year 1997-98 and the subsequent jamabandi implementing this decree and mutation are illegal, null and void and liable extent? OPP 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? 7. Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, if so, to what effect? OPD 8. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD 10. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as alleged in the written statement? OPD 11. Relief. The said application for amendment was not objected to by the defendant- petitioners nor any objection was raised to the framing of additional issues in view of the consent given by the defendant-petitioners. Both the applications were allowed subject to payment of costs. The trial Court passed the following order on 1.3.2005 which reads as under: That on the basis of the above statement on 1.3.2000, both the applications filed by the plaintiff-respondent were allowed by the trial Court and the case was fixed. The said order read as under: Present: Shri V.B. Bhatti, counsel for the plaintiff. Shri R.D. Bali, counsel defendants No. 1, 2 and 4. Defendant No. 3 to 5 ex parte. Learned Counsel for the defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 made statement that he no objection if the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is allowed. Heard. In view of the statement of counsel for the defendant the applications are allowed. Now to come upon on 5.4.2005 for filing of amended plaint and for framing of additional issues. Thereafter, the learned trial Court was pleased to pass the following orders on 5.4.2005 and 10.5.2005: Present: Shri V.B. Bhatti, counsel for the plaintiff. Shri R.D. Bali, counsel defendants No. 1, 2 and 4. Defendant No. 3 to 5 ex parte Amended plaint filed. Copy given. Now to come up on 9.4.2005 for framing of additional issues. Sd/- C.J. (JD) Karnal 5.4.2005 Present: Shri V.B. Bhatti, counsel for the plaintiff. Shri R.D. Bali, counsel defendants No. 1, 2 and 4. Defendant No. 3 to 5 ex parte. Amended written statement filed. Now to come up in 21.5.2005 for framing the additional issues, if any. Sd/- C.J. (JD) Karnal 10.5.2005.;