JUDGMENT P.K.Palli, J.: The plaintiffs/appellants, having lost before the learned trial Court, are in first appeal. The parties, hereinafter, shall be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. 2. Suit for possession and mesne profit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Admittedly, the property in question was evacuee property and was purchased by the plaintiffs in public auction vide certificate of sale issued on December 30, 1969. Mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs on July 12, 1977. As per averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs were living outside and the property in question was being looked after by on Bhim Sen Chopra, son of plaintiff No. 1. Said Bhim Sen Chopra is said to have become prisoner of war in 1971 and could not look after the property, resultantly, the defendants are said to have taken forcible and illegal possession of the property in unauthorised manner without the permission and consent of the plaintiffs. It was in the year 1977 when Bhim Sen Chopra came to Shimla and found the defendants to be in illegal and unauthorised possession. 3. Defendants No.5 and 6 claim themselves to be the owners of the property and the other defendants claim themselves to be the tenants under defendants No.5 and 6. 4. The defendants contested the suit on several pleas such as the suit is not competent and maintainable in view of the provisions contained under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 19S4. Pleas of mis-joinder, multifariousness, proper valuation were raised. On merits, it was said that the residential set in possession of defendant No. 1 was allotted to him by the Custodian on standard rent and when the District Rent and Managing Officer informed him that the property had been transferred in favour of Prem Nath Khanna, defendant No.6, he started paying rent to him. Prem Nath Khanna, thereafter agreed to sell this property to Joginder Lai Kuthiala, defendant No.5, and, therefore, he started paying rent to him. 5. It is at this stage pertinent to point out that the transfer in favour of Prem Nath Khanna was cancelled by the Rehabilitation Department. 6. Prem Nath Khanna, thereafter agreed to sell this property to Joginder Lai Kuthiala, defendant No.5, and, therefore, he started paying rent to him. 5. It is at this stage pertinent to point out that the transfer in favour of Prem Nath Khanna was cancelled by the Rehabilitation Department. 6. On behalf of defendants No.2 and 3, a plea was set up that Ac property after having been purchased by Prem Nath Khanna, M/S Bhai Karam Singh and Sons were inducted as tenants in the portion which is under occupation of these defendants. Ownership of the plaintiffs was denied. The other defendants also took up identical pleas. 7. On appreciation of the material placed on record by the parties, the learned Single Judge held that the suit stands correctly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction. The suit was not bad for multifariousness. There was no defect in the non-joinder of necessary parties or mis-joinder of the parties. 8. On issue No.7, a finding was recorded that defendant No.5 was not proved to be bona fide purchaser of the suit property. It was further held that defendant No.5 had acquired no title by way of adverse possession. Issue No. 16 regarding estoppel, was also not pressed. Crucial issue in the suit was issue No.5 as to whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property. After scrutiny of the record, it was held that the plaintiffs had not been able to prove their ownership by adducing proper evidence and the issue was held against them. Under issue No. 8 it was held defendant No. I was a tenant in respect of the portion of the suit property but defendants No.2, 3, 4 and 7 had failed to prove their tenancy rights in the suit property. Issue No. 10 was not contested by defendants No.2 and 3 and it was found that they had not acquired any tenancy rights nor they were in adverse possession. The suit for possession and recovery of compensation was held not maintainable against defendant No .l but the same was held to be maintainable against defendants No.2, 3, 4 and 7. 9. Under issue.No.6, a finding was recorded that the possession of all the defendants, except defendant No. l, was unauthorised. The suit for possession and recovery of compensation was held not maintainable against defendant No .l but the same was held to be maintainable against defendants No.2, 3, 4 and 7. 9. Under issue.No.6, a finding was recorded that the possession of all the defendants, except defendant No. l, was unauthorised. Issue.No.17 was also held against defendant No.5 and it was found that he was not entitled to recover any amount from the plaintiffs even if they are entitled to claim possession of the disputed property. Issues No. 12 and 13 were held against the plaintiffs in view of the findings recorded under issue No.5. 10. In view of the decision given under issue No.5, issues No. 14 and 15, though found unnecessary for decision, yet these issues stand decided against the defendants. However, it was found that the suit was not barred under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. As a result of the finding, mainly on issue No.5, the plaintiffs suit has been ordered to be dismissed. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, while opening his address of arguments, contends that the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by order of the Court on April 27, 1983. Out attention has been drawn to the order passed on that date. 12. Before we look at this order, it would be relevant to take notice of the order passed on the earlier date, i.e. April 19, 1983. In this order it is said that the case was listed for remaining evidence of the plaintiffs for April 18, 1983. The case was not taken up on that date and was listed for April 19, 1983. The order further reads that the learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he wanted to examine only Pyare Lal Chopra, plaintiff but he had received information that he was not keeping good health and requested for adjournment. The adjournment was granted and the case was ordered to be listed on April 27, 1983 for recording the statement of the plaintiffs. 13. When the case came up on April 27, 1983 the learned counsel appearing for plaintiff No. 1 stated that two telegrams had been sent to his client; one telegram had been received back as the address was insufficient and regarding the second telegram, no intimation had been received. 13. When the case came up on April 27, 1983 the learned counsel appearing for plaintiff No. 1 stated that two telegrams had been sent to his client; one telegram had been received back as the address was insufficient and regarding the second telegram, no intimation had been received. Prayer for grant of some more time was made in view of the fact that the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs had not been able to contact his clients. The request, some-how, did not find favour with the learned Court and it was found that there was no ground to adjourn the case any further and the request was rejected. The case was thereafter ordered to be listed for defendants evidence on May 24 and 25, 1983. 14. Learned counsel has further invited our attention to an application which was filed by the plaintiffs under Order 18 Rule 2(4) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for permission to produce Shri Madan Lal Chopra, plaintiff who is said to be the General Attorney of Pyare Lal Chopra and Krishan Lai Chopra, the other plaintiffs. This application is dated May 23, 1983 but is actually signed by the counsel on May 24, 1983. In this application it is said that the telegram was received late and further, plaintiff Madan Lal Chopra was busy with the marriage of his daughter that took place on April 23, 1983. It was said in para 3 that plaintiff Madan Lal Chopra was present in the Court that day and the evidence of the defendants was yet to start, he be permitted to appear as his own witness in the affirmative, This application was also accompanied by an affidavit and was taken up for consideration on June 23, 1983 and the prayer was rejected. It is observed in the order passed on that date that the case was adjourned for the statement of Pyare Lal and not for the statement of Madan Lal Chopra. It is further observed that the application was filed on May 24, 1983 and the me was not listed for orders on that date. It is observed in the order passed on that date that the case was adjourned for the statement of Pyare Lal and not for the statement of Madan Lal Chopra. It is further observed that the application was filed on May 24, 1983 and the me was not listed for orders on that date. The evidence of the defendants was recorded on May 24 and 25, 1983 and in case the plaintiffs or Madan Lal, plaintiff was keen to appear as his own witness, the application should have been filed much before May 24, 1983 when the evidence of the defendants was recorded. The application was dismissed with the observation that if the same was allowed, it would amount to re-opening of the whole case. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs thus proceeds to contend that on a reading of these two orders, it would appear that the plaintiffs were denied proper and sufficient opportunity to produce the evidence and when one of the plaintiffs was present in the Court before the start of the evidence of the defendants, there was no difficulty in permitting his examination as his own witness. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendants have vehemently opposed this prayer and submit that sufficient opportunities had already been grante to the plaintiffs and inspite of the indulgence of the Court to accommodate the plaintiffs, they did not care to produce their evidence and a thus, the case was rightly closed by an order of the Court and the application! subsequently filed for examination of the plaintiff, stands rightly rejected. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has further invited our attention to an application which has been filed under order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for seeking amendment of the plaint. This CM.P. No. 131 of 1996 has been filed on April 23, 1996 and prayer made therein is that the plaintiffs are brothers and are the sons of Shri Sardar Chand and they constitute a Joint Hindu Undivided Family (coparcenary) and is commonly known as Pyare Lal Chopra and Brothers. It is said that the plaintiffs in their capacity as such own several other properties else where and the property in dispute is also owned by them jointly in that capacity. It is said that the plaintiffs in their capacity as such own several other properties else where and the property in dispute is also owned by them jointly in that capacity. It is further said that plaintiff No.2 Madan Lal is the duly authorised General Attorney of plaintiffs No. l and 3. i The proposed amendment is said to be clarificatory in nature and according to j the learned counsel, it does not set up a new case as the foundations have already I been laid in the plaint. 18. The defendants have put in separate relies to this application and strongly contest the same. Besides being belated, the application is said to be a device to prolong the proceedings and is said to have the effect of changing nature of the suit. The application is also said to be mala fide and it is denied that the amendment sought is clarificatory in nature. In fact, it sets out totally a new case. 19. It is really unfortunate to have a look at the proceedings, particularly, in view of the conduct of the plaintiff in prosecution of the suit. Quite a valuable property is involved and stands located in the heart of the city. At the same time, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge trying the suit, should not have proceeded to close the evidence of the plaintiffs by an order of the Court, particularly, in view of the given situation as it emerges out from the reading of the record notice of which has already been taken above in the judgment. The plaintiffs moved an application on May 24, 1983 before the evidence of the defendants commenced. Shri Madan Lal Chopra, plaintiff No.2 was present in the Court on that date and should have been examined. 20. The rules of procedure are not intended to punish the parties even when it is found that they were not diligent in prosecution of the case but are 1 aimed at doing substantial justice between the parties. It has not been found as to how any prejudice was going to be caused to the other side if the plaintiff had been allowed to appear as his own witness. The examination of the plaintiff, in our view, should have been permitted and at best, cost should have been imposed. 21. It has not been found as to how any prejudice was going to be caused to the other side if the plaintiff had been allowed to appear as his own witness. The examination of the plaintiff, in our view, should have been permitted and at best, cost should have been imposed. 21. In order to examine whether the amendment can be permitted or not, it would be useful at this stage to peruse the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge under issue No. 5. At typed page 12 of the impugned judgment, there is an observation that none of the plaintiffs appeared in the witness box to prove the allegations or to stand the test of cross-examination. It has also been observed that defendant No.5 has admitted the ownership of the plaintiffs in his statement recorded in the Court on May 24, 1983. In our view, the learned Judge has wrongly held that the statement docs not prove that the plaintiffs arc the owners. It is also revealed from the observations made under this heading that there is paucity of documentary evidence to record a finding on ownership in favour of the plaintiffs and the sale certificate, mutation and Ext. P-2 simply prove that M/S Pyare Lal Chopra and Brothers have purchased the property in dispute and the mutation is also in their favour as such. This evidence has not been accepted. It has been recorded that the plaint is signed and verified only by one of the plaintiffs, i.e. Madan Lal Chopra who claims himself to be the General Attorney but there was no mention in the body of the plaint that he was the General Attorney of the other plaintiffs. 22. A reading of the sale certificate shows that the same is in favour of M/S Pyare Lal Chopra and Brothers. The learned Judge thereafter proceeded to hold that it was not known as to whether M/S Pyare Lal Chopra and Brothers is only a firm name or is a registered or unregistered partnership firm. It was further observed that if it is a firm, then it has not been proved as to who is its proprietor and in case it is a partnership concern, it is not known as to who are its partners and whether Madan Lal Chopra is one of the partners or not. It was further observed that if it is a firm, then it has not been proved as to who is its proprietor and in case it is a partnership concern, it is not known as to who are its partners and whether Madan Lal Chopra is one of the partners or not. There was further found to be a confusion that the sale certificate and mutation is sanctioned in favour of Jalandhar firm whereas the plaintiffs had given their address of Delhi. The connection between the two firms does not stand proved. 23. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, of course, finds mention that it is a Joint Hindu Family property and Madan Lal Chopra is the eldest brother, but the contention was rejected with the observations that it may be so within the knowledge of the plaintiffs counsel but there was no evidence to prove this fact. Towards the concluding portion of the observations made under this issue, immediately before the discussion of issue No.9, it has been found that there was no evidence regarding plaintiffs ownership and there was no option but to decide the issue against the plaintiffs. 24. In our considered view, if the plaintiffs had been permitted to be examined in Court, possibly, these observations would not have appeared in the manner these stand high-lighted in the judgment. 25. At the cost of repetition, it deserves to be stated here that Lal the other defendants, except defendant No. 1, have been found to be in unauthorised and illegal possession of the suit property. In such a situation, the learned Court, trying the case, should have taken a more lenient view and should have permitted plaintiff Madan Lal to examine himself and place such other material on record to prove the plaintiffs ownership. It is in this background that the application for amendment appears to have been made. 26.A look at the plaint reveals that the suit was filed by Pyare Lal Chopra, Madan Lal Chopra and Krishan Lal Chopra as sons of Sardar Chand and thereafter it has been stated "of M/S Pyare Lal Chopra and Brothers, residents of 1/6-B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi". In para 1, it is said that the plaintiffs arc owners of the property situated in the Middle Bazar, Shimla. In para 1, it is said that the plaintiffs arc owners of the property situated in the Middle Bazar, Shimla. In para 2, it is said that it was an evacuee property and was purchased by the plaintiffs in public auction and there was a sale certificate issued in favour of M/S Pyare Lal Chopra and Brothers and the sale certificate is being attached herewith. In this very paragraph, it is further said that mutation of the property stands sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs and the same is being attached herewith and that the vacant possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiffs by the Managing Officer soon after the sale in their favour. In para No.3, it has been clearly stated that the plaintiffs reside either in Delhi or in their home town in Revenue Estate of Rahon, District Jallandhar and they have not been able to look after the aforesaid property personally and the same was being looked after by Bhim Sen Chopra, son of Pyare Lal Chopra, plaintiff No. 1. 27. It appears that these averments made in the plaint have gone unnoticed by the learned Judge, while making observations under issue No. 5 relating to ownership of the plaintiffs. It is in this context that the plaintiffs have been compelled to file an application seeking amendment to the plaint which in our view, neither appears to be malafide nor can be said to be belated. All this has happened because plaintiffs Madan Lal Chopra was not permitted to make his statement as his own witness and had he been permitted to be examined, things could have been made more clear. 28. We do not understand as to how the proposed amendment sets up a new case or the defendants are going to be prejudiced if the same is allowed. We are of the firm view that the plaintiffs have made sufficient pleas in the body of the plaint and the amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature and deserve to be allowed. 29. At this stage, it deserve to be taken notice of that the defendants have also filed cross objections to the present appeal wherein grievance has been made with respect to the findings recorded on issues No.6, 10, 11, 14 and 15. 30. 29. At this stage, it deserve to be taken notice of that the defendants have also filed cross objections to the present appeal wherein grievance has been made with respect to the findings recorded on issues No.6, 10, 11, 14 and 15. 30. We have already observed above that the learned Judge dealing with the case, should have permitted plaintiff Madan Lal to appear as his own witness. We arc of the view that the application seeking amendment of the plaint deserves to be allowed. The amended plaint is taken up on the record subject, however, subject to the payment of cost which are quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. 31. As the suit is valued at Rs.1,34,800/- for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, at the time when the suit was filed, it was triable by this Court on account of the account of the valuation but in view of the Notification No.HHC/Admn.6(24)/74-II, dated Shimla February 21, 1995, a suit value of which does not exceed rupees two lac, is triable by the Senior Sub Judge/Subordinate Judge having the experience of five years as Subordinate Judge. In view of this notification, the case is remanded to the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Shimla for proceeding further in the matter from the stage of the amendment of the plaint. 32. As the case has gone pretty old and this appeal itself has taken more than twelve years to reach hearing by us, it is desired that the learned Senior Sub Judge shall proceed with the trial of the suit as expeditiously as possible and decide the same positively within one year from today. Each of the parties shall be afforded three opportunities to conclude their evidence and in case any of the parties fails to conclude the evidence in three opportunities, the evidence of that party shall be closed by order of the Court and none of the parties shall be granted any further opportunity. 33. The parties, through their learned counsel, arc directed to appear before the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Shimla on September 10, 1996. 34. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. In view of the appeal being allowed, the cross objections filed by the defendants/respondents, arc disposed of accordingly. 35. 33. The parties, through their learned counsel, arc directed to appear before the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Shimla on September 10, 1996. 34. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. In view of the appeal being allowed, the cross objections filed by the defendants/respondents, arc disposed of accordingly. 35. The record of the case be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. Costs to follow the event.