- (1.) Present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is challenge to the order dated 25.5.2013 [Anneuxre P/16], whereby application filed by defendant No. 37 - Sant Partap Singh @ Surbirinder Singh [Petitioner herein] for issuance of direction to the plaintiff for limiting rebuttal evidence to issue No. [xiii] only, was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Sangrur observing that applicant defendant No. 37 shall have full opportunity to cross-examine the witness on all the points which according to issue No. [xiii] may be relevant or irrelevant.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter in controversy revolves around leading of evidence by the parties. In Civil Suit No.326/19.08.1994 titled Hari Singh and others Vs. Sh. Puran Chand and others, the following issues were framed :- (i) Whether plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit land O PD (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for OPD (iii) Whether said deeds executed by defendant No.37 to 40 have no effect on the rights of plaintiffs OPP (iv) Whether Sh. Hardit Singh son of Anoop Singh was originally owner in possession of the suit land OPP (v) Whether mutation No.204 of 05.06.1934 was correctly sanctioned in favour of sons of Sh. Hardit Singh OPP (vi) Whether mutation No.534 dated 12.12.1938 is wrong, illegal, null and void and has no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants OPP (vii) Whether Tamlik No.1634 dated 23.09.1953 is a result of fraud and have no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs OPP (viii) Whether sale deed mentioned in para No.9 executed by Sant Partap Singh and his brothers have no effect qua the rights of plaintiffs and performa defendants and is liable to be ignored OPP (ix) Whether the property in dispute was joint Hindu Family Property of Bhagwant Singh, Balwant Singh, Kulwant Singh, Fateh Singh, Brinder Singh sons of Hardit Singh OPP (x) Whether suit is within time OPP (xi) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form OPD (xii) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit OPD (xiii) Whether defendants are bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration OPD (xiv) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct OPD (xv) Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands OPD 37 to 50 (xvi) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties as alleged in W/S OPD 37 to 40 (xvii) Relief."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that consequent to the order under challenge, the respondents have been permitted to lead additional evidence under the garb of rebuttal evidence, which is against the settled proposition of law. It is prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the present petition be accepted.;