Sanjay Karol, J.

Defendant’s application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, praying for re-examining the plaintiffs’ witness, as defendant’s suggestion of being in possession of the suit property, so put during the course of cross examination, was inadvertently left out from being recorded in the testimony, stands rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dated 23.6.2016, passed in Civil Suit No. 35-1 of 2015/09, titled as Satish Kumar Sharma & others vs. Hari Krishan, (Annexure P-7).

2. Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration qua the status and right & title of the defendant in the suit property. Defendant refuted the allegations, setting up his title.

3. On 21.11.2009, trial Court framed as many as fifteen issues. Record reveals that after a period of three years, on 17.10.2012, plaintiffs examined four witnesses. Thereafter, plaintiff No. 1 Satish Kumar Sharma was examined and his statement runs into 20 pages. It was recorded on 13.7.2015. Further two more witnesses were examined on 13.8.2015, on which date plaintiffs closed their evidence, where after matter was adjourned for 10.9.2015 for examination of defendant’s witnesses.

4. Instead of leading evidence on