Judgment

Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

This is the plaintiffs’ revision petition to challenge the correctness of the two impugned orders passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana on 20.11.2015. Vide Annexure P17, the trial Court has dismissed as many as four applications filed by the plaintiffs, two filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), whereas two under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Through the second order, the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed on the ground that the same has become infructuous.

2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. The petitioners, namely Daljit Kaur and Gursharan Kaur, mother and daughter, filed a suit against Bhupinder Singh for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into their possession with respect to the plot comprised in khasra No. 186 (min) with two rooms and a staircase. The plaintiffs claimed that they purchased the aforesaid property, measuring 527 square yards in total, through two different registered sale deeds, one executed by Gurmeet Singh, whereas the second executed by Kishan Singh, both sons of Hazara Singh, on 29.02.1988, which were registered on 01.03.1988. In para 3 of the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed that after purchasing the property, the plaintiff No.1 constructed two rooms in her portion of the property and rented out one room abutting the road linked to Amrik Singh’s property. Thereafter, Amrik Singh got on rent two rooms situated on the first floor of the adjoining house i.e. 66-C. For his convenience, and for proper usage of both the rooms on the first floor of the adjoining house No. 66-C along with the two rooms in khasra No. 186, he was allowed to construct a staircase. Subsequently, Amrik Singh surrendered the tenancy of two rooms forming a part of House No. 66-C and the room which was taken on rent from the plaintiff No.1. Even after he surrendered the tenancy, the staircase remained intact. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 rented out that room to Tulsi, a washerman, on a monthly rent of ¹ 400/- per month. However, he refused to pay the rent despite repeated requests. The defendant started making attempts to take forcible possession of the property taking advantage of the plaintiff’s, gender and their absence from the site. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit on 18.02.1999.

3. The defendant filed the written statement denying the facts while contesting the suit.

4. After the defendants filed the written statement, the plaintiffs filed the replication. On 29.02.2000, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 CPC. In the aforesaid application, the plaintiffs claimed that they have been forcibly dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and Jaswinder Kaur wife of Bhupinder Singh, Amrik Singh, Sukai and Tulsi Ram should be permitted to be impleaded as the defendants. It was projected that Amrik Singh claimed to have purchased the property. The defendant claims that Amrik Singh was the owner of the property in dispute who had handed over the property to him. Similarly, Jaswinder Kaur along with her husband Bhupinder Singh has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs and Mohinder Singh. Similarly, Sukai son of Nand Lal and Tulsi Ram son of Sukai have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Bhupinder Singh, defendant, Daljit Kaur, plaintiff and Mohinder Singh from dispossessing them from the room forming a part of property i.e. Unit No. 29-C, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana. The plaintiffs also prayed for permission to amend the plaint to seek relief of possession as they have been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. They also sought relief of recovery of amount towards the charges for use and occupation of the premises. Before the application could be decided, the plaintiffs filed yet another app