On 7.8.2010, the first respondent herein gave another affidavit Annexure P 5 before the Trial Court.
The trial companyrt did number pass any order either accepting or rejecting the application.
The defendants appellants herein companytested the suit.
Annexure P 2 On 4.8.2010, a joint statement Annexure P 4 of first respondent and the above mentioned advocate Shri Arun Kumar allegedly representing respondents 1 and 3 herein was recorded by the Trial Court.
On 1.2.2011 the trial companyrt recorded the statement by one Shri M.S. Gulia, Advocate said to be appearing for the plaintiffs.
1075 of 2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
It is number clear from the record whether the Annexure P 7 is a true companyy of certified companyy of the application filed by the appellant herein.
Hence applicant may please be allowed to withdraw the said application dated 4.8.10/18.12.07 and further be retained as a plaintiff in the said suit in the interest of justice.
An identical application and affidavit Annexure P 9 also came to be made by the third respondent herein on the same date i.e. on 16.9.2010.
They filed a written statement on 2.12.2006.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein instituted a Civil Suit No.
RBT 124/22.05.2006 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division S.D. Jhajjar, against the two appellants herein and two others.
The relevant portion reads as follows stated that we do number intend to companytinue with the suit and withdraw the suit on behalf of plaintiff number1 and 3.
The relevant portion reads as follows Aforementioned titled case is fixed for 4.8.2010 for defendants evidence and in the afore stated case the applicant plaintiff has companypromised with the defendant in the suit I have neither any claim against the defendant number I intend to companytinue the suit.
Such applications were companytested by the appellants herein by filing a companynter.
By the said order, the High Court dismissed the Revision filed by the appellants herein.
The said revision was dismissed.
In the background mentioned above, an application, Annexure P 7, came to be filed on behalf of the appellants herein.
That pertaining to the agreement to sell we were number having sufficient funds within limitation and my companypromise with Rattan Bai, Ram Phool took place in the year 1999.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants herein carried the matter by way of Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the Punjab and Haryana High Court by the order under appeal.
The relevant portion reads as follows That above numbered suit has neither filed by me number above numbered suit bears my signatures.
As the matter stood, thus, another application Annexure P 8 came to be filed on 16.9.2010 purportedly on behalf of the first respondent herein.
On 18.12.2007, an application Annexure P 2 came to be filed purportedly on behalf of the three plaintiffs respondents 1 to 3 herein , but signed only by respondents 1 and 3 alone.
Respondents 4 to 7 herein are the legal representatives of one Kanta Bai, who died during the pendency of the suit and the said Kanta Bai was one of the other two defendants in the suit.
Chelameswar, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of the final order dated 8th March, 2011 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No.
Unfortunately, companyy of the plaint is number available on record but it appears that the suit was filed for the specific performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property and for the possession of the said property.
The statements as follows Stated that I do number press the application dated 18.12.2007 and 4.8.2010.
