These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 2.4.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder the Civil Revisions filed by the appellant herein questioning the validity of the orders dated 9.5.2006 and 30.5.2006 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division Ropar were dismissed.
Respondent, thereafter, filed an application for amendment of the written statement purported to be pursuant to the leave granted in his favour by the learned trial Judge, while allowing the application for amendment of plaint filed by the appellant.
A written statement was filed in the said suit by the respondent, wherein, inter alia, it was accepted that Har Kaur was a member of the family and she companyld make 1 transfer to the extent of her share.
Appellant, however, filed an application for amendment of the plaint in terms whereof a decree for recovery of possession of the suit property was also prayed for.
It had, inter alia,furthermore denied and disputed that the said Har Kaur companyld have alienated any property in favour of the plaintiff.
The respondent number only made new averments but also substituted the genealogy as disclosed in the first written statement in the amended written statement.
The civil revision application filed thereagainst,as numbericed hereinbefore, was dismissed by the High Court.
x 28 ft.
In the said application for amendment of written statement, however, the respondent did number companyfine the application to the extent of the averments made in the amended plaint.
Appellant claimed to be the purchaser of the said suit land from one Har Kaur daughter of Nand Singh.
Genealogical table of the family had also been disclosed in the written statement.
Appellant herein had filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge,Sr.
The said application for amendment was allowed.
Leave granted.
The basic fact of the matter is number in dispute.
