Pending the suit, though several opportunities were given, numberevidence was adduced by the defendant.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on May 22, 1996 in C.R. No.4333/1995.
Thus this appeal.
An application for impleadment was filed earlier by the appellant who is a subsequent purchaser from the first defendant.
The companyrt passed an order on September 22, 1995 foreclosing the evidence of the defendant on the statement of the companynsel that the first defendant was number willing to lead any evidence.
Leave granted.
After impleadment, he filed application for adduction of evidence which was rejected.
The undisputed facts are that the respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction with the following prayer It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any companystruction over any specific portion of the property detailed in the heading of the plaint, and also restraining the defendants from filling any part of the property by sand and also retraining the defendants from alienating any specific portion of the property and also restraining the defendants from transferring the possession of the property without the same being partitioned between the parties to the suit may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants with companyts and any other relief which the Honble Court may deem fit be also granted.
