DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. By way of the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question, the order dated 25.11.2016, passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal Decree No. 2/2016, whereby a common application dated 15.03.2016, filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to amend the Plaint in Civil Original Suit No. 158/1984 and the written statement in the consolidated Case No. 631/1987 has been rejected.

2. The skeleton facts necessary for the adjudication of the present writ petition are set out here-infra:-

2.1. Petitioners-Plaintiffs, legal representatives of Safi Mohammad, instituted a suit for Permanent Injunction, against Ramjan Khan seeking an injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of their residential house situated at Sindhiyon-Ka-Bas, inside Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur.

2.2. The substratum of the plaintiffs’ case as projected in the plaint was that their, forerunner Late Shri Safi Mohammad was in possession of the land in question for over 100 years, whose possession was hostile to the right and title of the Municipal Board, Jodhpur and as such the defendants have no right to inference in their long possession.

2.3. The respondents-defendant No. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement and contested the suit, inter-alia, denying plaintiff’s adverse possession over the contentious land, while taking a specific plea that the Municipal Board had executed a registered sale deed dated 01.02.1945 in favour of Ramjan Khan pursuant to which they were having title, besides having possession over the subject property.

2.4. It was also stated in the written statement that another registered sale deed dated 20.09.1978 came to be executed by the State Government, vide which the land in question stood transferred in the name of the defendants-respondents (the legal representatives of Ramjan Khan).

2.5. The Legal Representatives of Ramzan Khan-respondents also filed a suit seeking possession and mandatory injunction in relation to the very same property contending that the land-in-question was purchased by their predecessor (Ramjan Khan) vide registered sale deed dated 01.02.1945, while the defendants had illegally taken possession of the property on 09.03.1984, when the plaintiff (Late Ramjan Khan) was out of station for his business.

2.6. The above suit was registered as Civil Original Suit No. 631/1987 and was consolidated vide order dated 09.10.1996 with the suit filed by the petitioners (Suit No. 158/84). Based on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial Court on 27.01.2006:

dUlksyhMsV rudh;kr~

fnukad & 27-1-2006

¼1½ vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe ij oknhx.k dk dfne ls 'kkfUriwoZd dCtk pyk vk jgk gS\ ftEes oknhx.k---------

¼2½ vk;k izfroknhx.k xSj dkuwuh :i ls oknhx.k dks muds dCtklwn fookfnr Hkwfe ls csn[ky djuk pkgrs gS\ ftEes oknhx.k---------

¼3½ vk;k eftn mtjkr dh dye la[;k & Mh o bZ dks eísutj j[krs gq, oknhx.k dk okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ ftEes oknhx.k---------

¼4½ vk;k oknxzLr tehu dh ekfy;r 50]000 & ¼iPpkl gtkj½ :i;s gS vr% oknh }kjk dksVZ Qhl de is'k djus ls mfpr dksVZ Qhl ds vHkko esa okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ ftEes oknhx.k---------

¼5½ vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe izfroknhx.k dh feYdh;r dh gS rFkk fnukad 9-3-84 rd mudk bl ij crkSj ekfyd dCtk jgk\ ftEes oknhx.k---------

¼6½ vk;k fookfnr Hkwfe ij oknhx.k us fnukad 9-3-84 dks vukf/kd`r dCtk dj fy;k rFkk okn esa voS/k dCtk fuekZ.k dj fy;k\ ftEes oknhx.k---------

¼7½ vk;k izfroknhx.k oknhx.k ls fookfnr Hkwfe dk dCtk voS/k fuekZ.k gVok dj iqu% izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ ftEes oknhx.k---------

¼8½ vk;k izzfroknhx.k Hkfo"; esa oknhx.k }kjk fookfnr Hkwfe ij n[ky jksdus gsrq LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa\ ftEes oknhx.k---------

¼9½ vuqrks"kA

rudh;kr i{kdkjksa dks Li"Vhd`r dh xbZ] vU; rudh;kr cuuk mHk;i{k ds vf/koDrkvksa us tkfgj ugha fd;kA

2.7. Both the consolidated suits, namely Civil Original Suit No. 15