ORDER :

By way of instant petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 14.11.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No. IV, Shimla, in case No. 72-1/2018, whereby an application of the petitioner for framing of additional issues was rejected.

2. Petitioner, who is plaintiff before the learned Trial Court, has filed above noted suit with following prayers: -

(a) That the plaintiff may be declare owner of the land and built up structure there on as entered against khata khatauni No. 3/3 khasra No.78 and 75 situated at Mauza Gadog, Tehsil and District Shimla as per jamabandi for the year 1957-58.

(b) That a decree for possession may be passed pertaining to land and built up structure existing thereon.

(c) That the defendants being in unauthorized possession of the suit property may be held liable to pay use and occupation charges at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month from the date of filing suit till further orders and delivery of possession.

3. The petitioner has filed the suit on the premise that the suit land was owned by his father late Sh. Rakha Ram, who had died on 26.05.1959. During life time of Rakha Ram, suit land was recorded in his ownership and possession. However, during preparation of jamabandi for the year 1961-62, one Bhadru was wrongly shown in possession of suit land as "Gair Maurusi". Petitioner has alleged that the entries made in revenue records in the name of Bhadru as non-occupancy tenants were illegal as it did not have any backing of a lawful order by a competent authority. The wrong revenue entries continued and on coming into force H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, Bhadru was shown to have acquired proprietary rights qua the suit land. It has further been pleaded by the petitioner that notwithstanding the entries so made in favour of Bhadru and on his death, his successors Balbir Singh, and therefore, the present respondents, petitioner continued to exercise rights of ownership and possession over the suit property till December, 2011 when Balbir Singh, predecessor-in-interest of respondents herein, forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from the suit land on the basis of wrong entries. Initially, the petitioner is stated to have taken recourse to revenue authorities but his contention was rejected on the ground that due to long lapse of time revenue entries could not be ordered to be corrected.

4. Respondents are contesting the suit. Besides having raised legal objections, the stand of the respondents, inter alia, is that they are in lawful possession of suit land as owners. They have denied that their predecessor-in-interest manipulated to procure wrong and illegal entries in the revenue records. The allegations with respect to dispossession of petitioner in the year 2011 have specifically been denied.

5. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 02.04.2019 and listed the case for evidence of plaintiff on 10.05.2019.

(i) Whether the plaintiff may be declared as owner of the land and built up structure there on as entered against khata khatauni No. 313 khasra No. 78 and 75 situated at Mauja Gadog, Tehsil and District Shimla as per Jamabandi for the year 1957-1958? .........OPP

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession of suit property? ..........OPP

(iii) Whether the defendant being in unauthorized possession of the suit property at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month from date of filing suit till further orders and delivery of possession of suit land? ...........OPP

(iv) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? .............OPD

(v) Whether the plaintiff is stranger to the property and has no right, title and interest to file the present suit? ...............OPD

(vi) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged? ...............OPD

(vii) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? ..............OPD

(viii) Relief.

6. Instead of leading evidence on the given date, petitioner filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5