Mr. Hemant Gupta, J.: (Oral) - Defendants are in revision aggrieved against an order passed by learned trial Court on 17.5.2010, whereby an application for recalling of an earlier order was dismissed.

2. The case has a chequered history. Earlier, the predecessor-ininterest of the defendant-petitioners filed two suits for permanent injunction restraining the present plaintiffs from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot, alienating, mortgaging or in any manner transferring the plot shown by letters ABCD in the site plan. The first suit bears No. 1235-T/93 dated 29.3.1989 and the second suit No. 999-T/93 dated 10.9.1988.

3. In both the suits, one of the issues framed was whether the plaintiffs therein are the owners in possession of the suit property. Both the suits were decided on 23.4.1997, wherein on the basis of the possession, the suit for injunction was decreed. However, a finding was recorded that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit property. The defendants filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. Both the appeals were dismissed on 26.7.2002. Defendants again filed two appeals i.e. RSA No. 36 of 2003 and 34 of 2003 before this Court which were withdrawn on 20.2.2004. Before the withdrawal of the appeals, plaintiffs filed the present suit for possession on December 23rd, 2003. In the plaint, the present plaintiffs averred that two second appeals are pending at their instance before this Court. It was pointed out that the issue of ownership has not been challenged by the defendants, meaning thereby that the defendants admit that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. In the said suit, defendant-petitioners filed the written statement. The learned trial Court initially framed certain issues, but the orders passed by learned trial Court on 20.11.2007 and 4.1.2008 became the subject matter of challenge before this Court in CR No. 1346 of 2008 which was decided on 20.7.2009 (Annexure P-3) when the following order was passed: -

“The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 20.11.2007 and 04.1.2008, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, it appears that the following issues necessarily arise out of the pleadings of the parties: -

1. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action in view of the previously decided litigation? OPP

2. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction?

It has been submitted that the petitioners want to amend the written statement in order to take the specific pleas with regard to the res-judicata and estoppel etc.

In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the trial Court to frame the issues with regard to cause of action as well as the Court fee. The petitioners would be at liberty to amend the written statement so as to raise any other pleas as they are advised or desired.”

4. It is thereafter, the defendants filed the amended written statement which was a blend of pleadings of fact and of law. The plaintiffs filed the replication wherein, inter- alia, it has been pleaded that the order passed by this Court does not permit the defendants to file the amended written statement. In a long replication filed, by the plaintiffs asserted various facts. Subsequently, on 7.12.2009, learned trial Court substituted following issues No. 4 and 5: -

“Issue No. 4: Whether the plaintiffs have cause of action in view of the previous decided litigation? OPD Issue No. 5: Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP

5. It is thereafter on 17.5.2010, learned trial Court framed the following 6 additional issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties: -

“5-A Whether the plaintiffs have been stopped by their own act and conduct? OPD

5-B. Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata?OPD

5-C Whether the su