JUDGMENT 1. - Both these Revision Petitions purporting to have been filed under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") arise out of impugned orders dated 4-11-96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Ladanu in Civil Suit No. 5/85 pending between the same parties and accordingly, both these petitions, being convenient, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. For the disposal of the controversies arising out of these petitions, the facts giving rise to them are that Moolchand (deceased) who was the original plaintiff in the suit, instituted this suit by way of presentment of a plaint on 19-2-85 thereby impleading non petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 as defendants seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants. It was pleaded that the suit property which is marked and shown by the letters ABCD in the enclosed site-map, situated in Jaswantgarh, was of joint ownership of Moolchand and defendant No. 14 Govindram. It was also alleged that two old constructed 'kothas' and a 'kutchi' kitchen were existing on the suit premises. It was occupied by their mother. The defendant No. 4, who is brother of Moolchand (deceased) is residing at Village Kudali while Moolchand was carrying on his business at Sujangarh. The defendant No. 1 with the help and connivance of defendant No. 2 Bhanwar Lal is bent upon taking forcible possession of the disputed property and in furtherance of it, they had also removed a temple existing on the disputed property on 5-10-84 resulting in lodging of an FIR with the Police Station, Jaswantgarh. Therefore, it was pleaded and prayed that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 had no legal right or claim over the disputed property and since they were bent upon to forcibly take possession of the disputed property thereby ousting the possession and defeating the title, claim and interest of the plaintiff and his brother defendant No. 4 and, therefore, a decree of permanent injunction against defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was sought. This was resisted by defendant Ram Niwas who contested all these allegations of the plaintiff submitting that the plaintiff Mool Chand was a notorious criminal and was involved in nefarious activities of usurping property of other persons who was also involved in many criminal cases pending in different Courts. 1 to 3 was sought. This was resisted by defendant Ram Niwas who contested all these allegations of the plaintiff submitting that the plaintiff Mool Chand was a notorious criminal and was involved in nefarious activities of usurping property of other persons who was also involved in many criminal cases pending in different Courts. It was denied that the suit property marked by ABCD and claimed to be of the ownership of the plaintiff Moolchand and defendant-Govindram was of their ownership and they were also possessed of the same. 3. On the other hand, inter alia, it was pleaded that the southern half portion of this property was in exclusive possession of Bherubux and on his death, in the possession of defendant No. 1 Ram Niwas and his brother while the alleged constructions were existing on the northern half portion which belongs to Moolchand and his brother Govindram wherein their mother was residing. So, the case of the defendants throughout has been that the disputed plot was not in the possession, use and occupation of the plaintiff Moolchand as well as Govindram nor did they have any right, title or interest in the same at the time of institution of the suit. Though the plaintiff Moolchand (deceased) and Govind Ram did not unfold the true state of affairs in their original pleadings but the defendant Ram Niwas clearly pleaded that his father Bherbux instituted a money suit No. 55/56 in the Court of Munsif. Deedwana against Moolchand and obtained a decree against the plaintiff and, resultantly, the southern half portion of the suit property was put to Court auction which was purchased by Bherubux on 20-10-60 and, accordingly, a Sale Certificate was issued by the Court in respect of the southern half portion of the suit property in favour of Bherubux who was declared a purchaser of this portion of the property and since then Bherubux, and on his death, his heirs including the defendant No. 1 Ram Niwas, are in exclusive possession, use and occupation of this portion of the plot and that there never existed any construction over this southern portion of the land and that the site-plan was not correctly prepared and the constructions were falsely exhibited on the middle part of the suit property whereas it existed on the northern half portion of the disputed property. It was also denied that there existed no temple at the time of auction of the southern portion of the plot in execution of the decree obtained by Bherubux or thereafter. 4. It was also clearly pleaded that stone-slabs were erected on the northern side of the southern plot thereby demarcating and dividing the suit property in the ratio of fifty-fifty on the northern and southern side and, therefore, there did not arise any question of either occupation or use of the southern half portion of the suit property by Moolchand or his predecessor in interest after 20-10-60. 5. It may also be noted that Moolchand died during the pendency of the suit resulting in bringing his legal representatives on record who are prosecuting this suit. 6. Moolchand-plaintiff, on the night of 4-10-84, dishonestly engaged some labour and with the aid and abetment of some of his agents, felled the stone-slabs erected and standing on the southern side of the northern half plot which is in occupation of mother of Moolchand so as to take illegal possession of the southern plot as well and since it amounted to an act resulting in commission of breach of peace and the police filed a complaint under Section 107/151, Cr.P.C. against Moolchand in the Court. Accordingly, it was pleaded that since the southern half portion of the suit property was of the ownership of Ram Niwas and it was also in his exclusive physical possession since 28-2-60 and, therefore, there did not arise any question nor there was any opportunity for illegal and forcible possession of this portion of the plot and, the original plaintiff Moolchand was motivated solely by the consideration of advancing his false claim over this portion of the suit property and, consequently, he has invented and foisted this false case against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, since defendant-non-petitioner No. 2 Bhanwarlal and non-petitioner No. 5 Laxman Ram also purchased one plot each out of the southern half portion of the suit property which is claimed by defendant Ram Niwas of his ownership and occupancy on the basis of registered sale-deeds dated 17-2-93 and, accordingly, since Bhanwarlal was already on record previously, Laxman Ram was also added as defendant No. 5 in the plaint. 7. 7. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code pleading therein that the defendant Ram Niwas claims the disputed property to have been purchased by his father Bheubux in Court auction in execution of money decree but this portion of the suit property was of the ownership of the plaintiff and he along with his members of his family continued to be in exclusive use, occupation and possession of the property and, after filing of the written-statement by the contesting defendants, he had claimed adverse possession which ripened into a title of this property as well, in case the property was so purchased by Bherubux in any Court auction proceedings and, therefore, he further submitted that, during the pendency of the suit, since Ram Niwas had executed two separate sale-deeds on 17-2-93 thereby selling two plots carved out of the disputed suit property in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 5 and, accordingly, vide its order dated 29-3-93, while accepting prayer of the plaintiff, Laxman Ram defendant No. 5 has also been added as above and, in the circumstances, it was prayed that since the plaintiff Wants to obtain a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant No. 5 Laxman Ram as well so as to restrain him from interfering with the possession, use and occupation of the disputed property by the plaintiff and, accordingly, along with this application submitting an amended plaint, it was pleaded that the stone-slabs so erected and standing on the southern half portion of the suit property were damaged and removed from there by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and, besides, a room existing on the southern half portion of the suit property was also demolished and, at the same time, the lock of the plaintiff placed on the door of the room along with its door-frame were stolen. A new wall was erected between the plot ABCD dividing it half to half and a gate was erected and a lock was also placed on the door of the gate and it has also resulted in damages to Rs. A new wall was erected between the plot ABCD dividing it half to half and a gate was erected and a lock was also placed on the door of the gate and it has also resulted in damages to Rs. 5000/- and, accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to a mandatory injunction for removal of the constructions and encroachment so made by the defendants and as a result, an amendment in the plaint was sought for with a further plea that it will result in shortening the litigation already pending between the parties besides the multiplicity of the same. It has been necessitated due to subsequent events which have taken place in the manner indicated as above. 8. This petition of the plaintiff was seriously opposed mainly on the ground that it was mala fide and there was no truth and substance in the allegations made in the application as well as the proposed amendment. This belated prayer of the plaintiff will necessarily result in changing the nature of the original suit and the claim of the plaintiff in regard to the possession of the disputed property was initially rejected by the trial Court holding that no prima facie case of possession of the plaintiff on the disputed property was established and, now, by way of amendment so sought for, the plaintiff is again seeking a device to obtain possession of the suit properly though he has to been in possession of the suit property since 28-10-1960 it would also result in adversely affecting the case of the contesting defendants. 9. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial judge vide his impugned order dated 4-11-1996 rejected the application dated 24-9-93 dong with the proposed amended plaint holding that in case the amendment sought the plaintiff was allowed, it would necessarily result in changing the nature of the suit to the prejudice of the contesting defendants and the amendments so sought for were not necessary for adjudication of the controversy in question and the same was not necessary for just decision of the case. Being thieved, S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 156197 has been preferred. 10. Similarly, the plaintiff also filed an application on 9-7-93 purporting to be under section 30 and O.11 Rr. Being thieved, S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 156197 has been preferred. 10. Similarly, the plaintiff also filed an application on 9-7-93 purporting to be under section 30 and O.11 Rr. 2,12,14 read with sections 141 and 151 of the Code before the trial Court which ordered the defendants vide is order dated 1-10-93 to answer the interrogatories served upon them by way of duly supported by affidavits regarding taking of physical and actual possession of the suit property pursuant to Court auction proceedings by Ram Niwas or any member of his family and, in case, simultaneously along with issuance of Court Sale Certificate of physical possession was taken, whether any Court proceedings were initiated resulting 'delivery of possession physically to either Ram Niwas or any of his family members on behalf of Bherubux. Besides, in case a water pipe-line was laid on the disputed suit property, the particulars about its date as well e the persons who carried out this work besides documentary proof in support of expenses incurred on the same, should also be placed before the Court. 11. Accordingly, out of the three interrogatories, so sought for to be served on the said defendants interrogatories Nos. 1 and 3 were served on the defendants and, accordingly, defendant No. 1 Ram Niwas did not answer the same and instead defendants Nos. 2 and 5 answered the same but it was alleged that the same were insufficient and patently false and they could not have acquired any knowledge about the interrogatory No. 1 about obtaining ; possession of the disputed property by Bherubux in Court auction sale while, as regards interrogatory No. 3, its correctness was also seriously challenged and, accordingly, the plaintiff further moved an application on 11-5-94 with an objection that answer to the interrogatories so served on the defendants Nos. 1,2 and 5 were not answered sufficiently and correctly and so the Court should struck off the defence of the defendants and that a criminal complaint be lodged against them for swearing in false affidavits by the answering defendants. 12. 1,2 and 5 were not answered sufficiently and correctly and so the Court should struck off the defence of the defendants and that a criminal complaint be lodged against them for swearing in false affidavits by the answering defendants. 12. However, the learned trial Judge vide order dated 4-11-96, holding that the objection of the plaintiff that the answers to the interrogatories were either insufficient and no objection could be taken against the affidavits sworn on oath according to law and, therefore, the application of the plaintiff was held to be devoid of any merit and stood dismissed, resulting in filing of S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 533/97. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders along with the material made available at the time of the hearing and considered the same carefully.Re. Revision Petition No. 536/97. 14. Before adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the facts, which are not disputed, may be summarised. This suit was brought by Moolchand, now deceased, who was brother of the defendant-non-petitioner No. 4 Govind Ram. The disputed property, being a vacant plot, is situated in Jaswantgarh. Admittedly, neither the plaintiff Moolchand nor his brother Govind Ram lived at Jaswantgarh. Their mother alone was living in the constructed portion on the northern half portion of the original plot. Ram Niwas's father Bherubux, in the execution proceedings of a money decree against Moolchand, in which the suit property was attached and auctioned by the executing Court, purchased the same giving the highest bid and, consequently, on payment of full bid amount, the sale was confirmed in his favour and a sale-deed was executed and delivered to Bherubux by the Court. 15. Moolchand did not disclose this fact in his plaint and instead pleaded that the plot was of his ownership and possession and the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were likely to forcibly take possession of the plot and hence a suit for perpetual injunction only was instituted. The plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands from very beginning. 16. However, Ram Niwas, defendant No. 1, made revelations of all these facts. 17. 1 to 3 were likely to forcibly take possession of the plot and hence a suit for perpetual injunction only was instituted. The plaintiff did not come to the Court with clean hands from very beginning. 16. However, Ram Niwas, defendant No. 1, made revelations of all these facts. 17. It was alleged in the plaint that a temple existing on the suit property was demolished and removed on 5-10-84 for which an FIR was lodged with the P. S., Jaswantgarh and, admittedly, an FR (negative) followed, after investigation. 18. The defendant Ram Niwas has very clearly maintained from very beginning that the suit property was purchased in Court auction, as above, and since then the family of Bherubux is in exclusive possession. At no point of time the same was taken back resulting in dispossession of Bherubux and his family members. The defendant No. 1 also pleaded that there was no construction existing on the suit property and instead the same existed on the northern half portion only. There did not exist any construction or any building of temple on the suit plot and hence there could not arise any question of any demolition and removal of any constructed portion or any item. On the contrary, the defendants' case is that it was the plaintiff Moolchand who unsuccessfully attempted to re-take possession of the suit plot on the night of 4-10-84 and the matter was reported to the police, which lodged a complaint against Moolchand u/S. 107/151, Cr. P. C. these facts are almost uncontroverted. This disabled the trial Court from even granting temporary injunction against the defendants. 19. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has vehemently contended that though the suit property was auctioned, though omitted in the suit, but a mere issuance of a Sale Certificate does not furnish any legal proof of simultaneous possession also having been delivered to the Court auction-purchaser-Bherubux. No proceedings as per provisions of Order 21, Rule 95 of the Code were taken and hence the possession must be deemed to have continued with Moolchand and his successors-in-title and hence the plaintiff-petitioners were entitled to possession since their adverse possession to Bherubux and the defendant-non-petitioners has also ripened into an ownership on the ground of adverse and hostile possession, contrary to the case of the plaintiff in the beginning. 20. 20. However, as already discussed and detailed hereinbefore, Bherubux obtained a Sale Certificate and also obtained possession, as was natural and the possession usually follows the title and subsequent thereto, the plaintiff never dispossessed either Bherubux or any of his family members therefore. Therefore, it is also not correct to say that the defendant No. 1 should show as to when did he obtain the possession of the suit property purchased in Court auction. The plaintiff Moolchand and his brother Govind Ram lived and carried on their business at different places. The police did not find any substance in the FIR lodged on 5-10-84. There arose no necessity to avail of provisions of Rs. 95 of O. 21 of the Code. 21. Likewise, as alleged in the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code, another FIR was lodged with the P. S. Jaswantgarh for the alleged incidents of 13-3-93 and 16-3-93 but the same also did not result in filing charge-sheet against the contesting defendants. The existence of any constructed item on suit property is denied from very beginning and hence, there was no occasion for the defendants to have resorted to violent conduct thereby demolishing any portion of built up wall or room etc. The trial Court even did not find prima facie case of possession of the plaintiff on the suit property and hence, even after arraignment of Laxman Ram defendant No. 5, subsequent alienee of a portion of the suit property like defendant No. 2, Bhanwarlal in view of provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, even if either party to the suit happened to alienate suit property, the same does not affect the rights of the other party. These provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act bar transfer of immovable property which is directly and specifically in question to the detriment of other party except under the provisions provided thereunder. The defendant No. 1 is alleged to have made transfers of portions of the suit property during pendency of the lis (suit) and doctrine of lis pendens provides that the transferee of the suit property shall be bound by the judgment passed against the transferor of the property. The defendant No. 1 is alleged to have made transfers of portions of the suit property during pendency of the lis (suit) and doctrine of lis pendens provides that the transferee of the suit property shall be bound by the judgment passed against the transferor of the property. The rights so obtained by way of transfer of the property during the pendency of a suit by any party to the suit are subservient to the rights of the transferor and the same binds the transferee in the same manner in which the transferor himself is. This does not necessitate impleadment of the subsequent purchaser or transferee of the suit property during the pendency of the suit as a necessary party. A reference may be made to the decisions peered in Santa Singh v. Rajendra Singh AIR 1965 Punj 415 (FB) , also followed in: Hari Bachan v. Har Bhajan, AIR 1975 P&H 205 . Kenthen Laxman Ram defendant No. 5 has been impleaded while Bhanwarlal defendant lie 2 was already a party since beginning. In the plaintiffs succeed against the defendant Ram Niwas and any judgment into in favour of the plaintiffs, as stated Have, in view of mandatory provisions of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act both Bhanwarlal and Laxman Ram shall be bound by the same. They were not found to offenders of commission of any offences of trespass, nuisance, mischief or any other fences in the second FIR as well. All these facts and circumstances show that the plaintiffs or their predecessor-in-title were never in possession of the suit property after 28-10-60 and hence after lapse of more than I years therefrom, the plaintiffs could not king any action claiming restoration of possession, the same being barred by limitation. No Court fees for either declaration of title or restoration of possession was ever lied and instead, a cheap device was found who ask for a decree for perpetual injunction absence of any possession over the suit property after 28-10-60. Therefore, in absence of title, even not claimed, besides Repossession, which did not appear, on the basis of aforementioned discussion and hence, specially when the suit is pending since 19-2-85 and the nature of the suit by any of the proposed amendment is bound to be changed. 22. The alleged acts of demolition, damage, theft, new construction etc. Therefore, in absence of title, even not claimed, besides Repossession, which did not appear, on the basis of aforementioned discussion and hence, specially when the suit is pending since 19-2-85 and the nature of the suit by any of the proposed amendment is bound to be changed. 22. The alleged acts of demolition, damage, theft, new construction etc. are all denied by the defendants and the plaintiffs were never in possession after 28-10-60 and hence the defendant No. 1. and through him, defendants Nos. 2 and 5 having right, title and merest in the suit property, no incidents as alleged appear to have taken place and hence lie argument of any subsequent event, by nay of change in circumstances as prevailing at the time of institution of the suit is without any substance, specially looking to the conduct and antecedents of Moolchand, as evidenced from the aforesaid discussion. Therefore, when the conduct of the plaintiffs and the progressive developments culminating into present petition show that the amendment, sought for in the plaint are not bona fide nor just nor necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. In case they are allowed, instead of shortening the litigation, it would be prolonged without any end in the foreseeable future. This would necessarily occasion a failure of justice, not warranting allowance and admittance of such an unjust prayer. Therefore, the S.B. decision of this Court in Babulal v. Chandi Ram, 1997 DNJ (Raj) 108 is of no avail on account of different facts and circumstances brought hereinbefore. The plaintiffs did not seek an amendment and reliefs of cancellation of alleged sale deeds and restoration of possession of the suit property and instead are seeking, indirectly, decree of mandatory injunction of eviction of the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5 from the suit premises to escape from the liability to pay Court-fees otherwise payable ad valorem, as has been contended by Shri Chopra, counsel for the non-petitioners relying on the decisions rendered in Shyamlal v. Sohanlal. 1979 RLW 240 and Sukhlal v. Devilal, 1954 RLW 136 . 23. 1, 2 and 5 from the suit premises to escape from the liability to pay Court-fees otherwise payable ad valorem, as has been contended by Shri Chopra, counsel for the non-petitioners relying on the decisions rendered in Shyamlal v. Sohanlal. 1979 RLW 240 and Sukhlal v. Devilal, 1954 RLW 136 . 23. In the result, when the learned trial Judge refused to entertain the prayer for allowing amendment vide his impugned order, the same cannot be held to have acted in its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity much less, in case the impugned order is allowed to stand, occasioning a failure of justice and hence, this petition is wholly devoid of any merit warranting no interference.Re. Revision Petition No. 533/97. 24. The plaintiffs, on failure to obtain any temporary relief by way of grant of temporary injunction against the defendants, in the second inning therefor, also moved an application under Section 30 read with O.11, Rr. 2,12,21 and under Sections 141 and 151 of the Code with permission to deliver three interrogatories to the defendants and the trial Court allowed interrogatories Nos. 1 and 3 which related to the mode and time of taking possession of the suit property by the defendants and the information about laying down of water connection line on the suit property which were duly answered by the defendants Nos. 2 and 5 accordingly and hence, being not satisfied, the plaintiffs yet filed another application on 11-5-94 pleading that the interrogatory No. 1 mainly concerned defendant No. 1 who did not answer the same and hence his defence be struck out under R. 21 of O. 11 of the Code. Besides, the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have given a vague and false answer to the interrogatory thereby incurring a liability for being prosecuted for commission of perjury. 25. In the aforesaid circumstances, as discussed hereinbefore, the defendant No. 1 has maintained from the very beginning that Bherubux, original Court auction purchaser is in possession of the suit property simultaneously with confirmation and issuance of Sale Certificate by the Court of Munsif, Didwana, whose jurisdiction extended over the suit property at the relevant time and, it is beyond one's comprehension that the purchaser retired with the said document without taking possession of the land. When the suit land was publicly attached and auctioned, it was under the control and in the custody of the Court and on its being openly auctioned to the willing purchaser on his highest bid. Bherubux having purchased by giving the highest bid therefor and the sale having been confirmed in his favour. The property stood released and delivered to the purchaser who also got the Sale Certificate. The plaintiffs never challenged it before the present suit was filed as late as on 19-2-85 and not before. Therefore, be it defendant No. 1 or defendants Nos. 2 and 5 who also have been got arraigned as defendants by the plaintiffs themselves and, theirs' having stepped into shoes of their predecessors-in-title who is defendant No. 1, they have also maintained the plea of defendant No. 1 that Bherubux and through him, his heirs are in continuous possession of the defendant No. 1 and Bherubux who are residents of Jaswantgarh itself whereat the suit property is situated while both Moolchand and Govind Ram lived at Sujangarh and the village Kudali and hence though, one of the objects of interrogatories is to ascertain an adversary's case, yet they cannot be permitted to be used by any unscrupulous party merely to obtain a disclosure before hand of evidence supporting the adversary's case as this would necessarily result in giving one party unfair advantage over the other, as is the, instantly, case of the plaintiffs under consideration. This right to serve interrogatories and the power to order interrogatories to be served and answered ought to have been used with considerable care and caution so as to disable such party from abuse of exercise of this right. The defendant No. 1 s having been pleading, since inception title and possession from 28-10-60 itself, the interrogatory No. 1 was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and since, on the face of unequivocal defence pleading, rest is a matter of evidence. Consequently, nothing more was to be sought from the defendant No. 1 regarding possession in the garb of interrogatory Not and hence there did not arise any question of non-compliance with the order for delivery and answering of this interrogatory and consequently striking out defence of the defendants. 26. So also, when the defendants Nos. Consequently, nothing more was to be sought from the defendant No. 1 regarding possession in the garb of interrogatory Not and hence there did not arise any question of non-compliance with the order for delivery and answering of this interrogatory and consequently striking out defence of the defendants. 26. So also, when the defendants Nos. 2 and 5 have come forward with answer to the interrogatory No. 3 regarding laying down and fitting of water-pipe line, its truth is to be judged by way of completion of trial of the suit and not before as is the attempt of the plaintiff-petitioners. The procedure of trial of suit does not warrant abrupt and piecemeal enquiries before final adjudication of the lis itself and hence, though thoroughly answered, the plaintiff-petitioners have again sought to impose their version on the Court. This squarely falls in the field of evidence provided the same relates to any matter in question in the suit itself. 27. As a result of above discussion, the learned trial Judge does not appear to behave committed any jurisdictional error under Section 115 of the Code occasioning any failure of justice warranting interference in this revision petition. 28. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in either petition and the same deserve their dismissals. However, the discussions and the findings in these petitions shall be overlooked while adjudicating the suit finally. 29. Consequently, both the revision petitions are dismissed, affirming the impugned orders. The contesting non petitioners shall be entitled to costs of Rs. 1000/- in equal proportion in each petition (totalling Rs. 2000/-) to be realised by the trial Court.Petition dismissed. *******