- (1.) THE petitioner -defendant No.5 is aggrieved by the order dated 29.5.2013 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Sikar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for reopening his evidence has been rejected.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent -plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the petitioner -defendant and the proforma respondents -defendants to declare her the owner of 1/6th share of agricultural land mentioned in Para -1 of the plaint and to declare the sale deeds dated 21.6.2001 and 13.8.2001 executed by her father, Late Ram Chandra, in favour of the petitioner -defendant, and the subsequent sale deed dated 30.4.2003 executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent -defendant No.6, as illegal and void. The plaintiff had also prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction directing the defendants not to alienate or sell the land in dispute and not to dispossess her from the land in dispute.
(3.) THE petitioner -defendant and the other respondents -defendants filed their separate written statements and denied the averments made in the plaint.;