Dinesh Chandra Somani, J.

Defendant-petitioners filed this petition to quash and set aside order dated 28.1.2015 passed by Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 4, Alwar and consequently to reject the applications of plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of C.P.C.

2. Brief Facts :-

The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit against defendant-petitioners to declare the sale deeds executed by defendant-respondent No. 2 herein on dated 7.5.2008 and 8.5.2008 in favour of the defendant No. 2 and I respectively, to be void and ineffective as against plaintiff-respondent and also for permanent and mandatory injuction. The plaintiff filed the suit with the averment that he has taken the suit premises on rent @ Rs. 30/- (Thirty Rupees) per months from Bihari Lal S/o Bhagwan Sahai on dated 10.1.1968 in the form of Godown in which he is doing business of sacks ("baardaana"). Chiranjee Lal S/o Bhagwan Sahaya and Lakhmi Chand S/o Bhore Lal filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the plaintiff-respondent on dated 10.4.1974. In that suit present plaintiff pleaded that Chiranjee Lal and Lakhmi Chand were not the owner of that rented property, Shri Bihari Lal S/o Bhagwan Sahaya was only the owner of said property from whom the plaintiff herein has taken on rent. The said suit was dismissed in default on 31.3.1994. When the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the sale deeds by defendant-respondent Smt. Janak Gupta in favour of defendant-petitioners, he obtained certified copies of the sale deeds and filed the suit contending that the maps among with the sale deeds are against the site position and on the basis of sale deeds the defendants are causing hindrance in the rights and possession of the plaintiff as a tenant on the basis of said sale deeds.

3. Defendant-petitioners filed their written statement disclosing the fact of sale deeds and as to how Smt. Janak Gupta had go rights to make the sale. Petitioners also pleaded that Bihari Lai, Bhore Lal, Rampat and Chiranjee Lal had a son named Lakhmi Chand. After the death of Bihari Lal and Rampat, Shri Chiranjee Lal succeeded them as their real brother and became owner of the property. That is why relationship of land lord and tenant established between plaintiff and Chranjee Lal. It was also pleaded that Chiranjee Lal executed a will on dated 25.7.1994 in favour of Smt. Janak Gupta defendant-respondent herein, thus after the death of Chiranjee Lal, Smt. Janak Gupta became owner of the property. It is also pleaded that after execution of sale deeds, through registered notice Smt. Janak Gupta informed the plaintiff-respondent about the sale deeds and to pay the rent in future to the purchasers. Defendant-respondent No. 2 herein also filed her written statement almost with the same averments made by defendant-petitioners.

4. Thereafter the Trial Court framed issues on dated 3.5.2011. At this stage plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. on dated 28.5.2012 praying therein that after para 10 of the plaint, para 10A may be permitted to be added by way of amendment. The plaintiff stated in the application that he is tenant of Bihari Lal S/o Bhagwan Sahaya and the property does not belong to Chiranjee Lal S/o Bhagwan Sahaya. Adoption deed of Chiranjee Lal is forged and he had no rights to execute a will regarding properly of Bihari Lal. Chiranjee Lal never executed any will in favour of Smt. Janak Gupta. The alleged will is forged that is why the said sale deeds are executed by unauthorised person thus, no rights are created in favour of purchasers.

5. The defendant-petitioners filed reply to the application contending that the plaintiff mentioned in his application that the said will came to his knowledge when the documents were filed in the proceedings of Section 9 of the Rent Control Act and since the documents were photocopy, therefore, certified copies could not be taken by him. Now the original documents were filed by the pa