Full Text
Translation output
\3
A-W O
/
% 27.7.2011
Present: Mr.Ashish Mohan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.V.L.Madan, Advocate for respondents.
+CM(M) No.107/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
21.10.2010 vide which the apphcation filed by the defendants under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking framing of an additional issue had been dismissed.
Present suit is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners before this Court are the defendants.
Issues had been framed on 08.1.2001. This application had been filed on 05.12.2008 i.e. after a lai)se of more than seven years.
Trial was complete and the matter had in fact been listed for final arguments when this application was filed. The contention of the petitioners is that issue no.3 which reads as under:
"Whether the suit property is under the ownership of the defendant? OPD" has wrongly placed the onus upon the defendants; it was for the plaintiffs to show that they are the owners of the suit property before they could get the relief of declaration.
The averments made in the plaint show that the plaintiffs claim to be owners in possession of the suit property. For the
2011:DHC:8796 plaintiffs entitlement for the relief of declaration (in terms of issue nol) they shall have to establish this averment contained in the plaint.
With these clarification petition is disposed o:
JULY 27, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:8796
A-W O
/
% 27.7.2011
Present: Mr.Ashish Mohan, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.V.L.Madan, Advocate for respondents.
+CM(M) No.107/2011
*
The order impugned before this Court is the order dated
21.10.2010 vide which the apphcation filed by the defendants under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') seeking framing of an additional issue had been dismissed.
Present suit is a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners before this Court are the defendants.
Issues had been framed on 08.1.2001. This application had been filed on 05.12.2008 i.e. after a lai)se of more than seven years.
Trial was complete and the matter had in fact been listed for final arguments when this application was filed. The contention of the petitioners is that issue no.3 which reads as under:
"Whether the suit property is under the ownership of the defendant? OPD" has wrongly placed the onus upon the defendants; it was for the plaintiffs to show that they are the owners of the suit property before they could get the relief of declaration.
The averments made in the plaint show that the plaintiffs claim to be owners in possession of the suit property. For the
2011:DHC:8796 plaintiffs entitlement for the relief of declaration (in terms of issue nol) they shall have to establish this averment contained in the plaint.
With these clarification petition is disposed o:
JULY 27, 2011 nandan
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:8796
JUDGMENT