IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO.No.. 103 of 2010. Date of Decision:25.2.2011. _______________________________________________ Gram Panchayat Chattara and others. ….Appellants. Versus. Ram Kumar and others. ….Respondents. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1?. No. For the appellants :Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate. For Respondents. :Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The defendants are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs who had prayed for a decree of declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and others are the Managers and Mohitmims of a temple situated on particular khasra numbers as detailed and described in the plaint. Upon a consideration of the settled issues, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs appealed. 2. Before the learned appellate Court, the plaintiffs instituted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for the amendment as detailed in the application which mainly consisted of addition of certain other khasra numbers Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment..Yes. 2 over and above those which have been enumerated in the plaint. Prior to filing of the present application for amendment, the plaintiffs had also moved an application under Order 23 praying for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file afresh suit in accordance with law which application was declined by the learned Court. 3. The learned appellate Court allowed the application as also an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading of additional party without there being any application before the learned Court. In the totality, the judgment and decree was set aside and the case remanded to the learned Civil Judge for disposal afresh in accordance with law. The defendants are now in appeal against this order. 4. A number of grounds have been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants that the order of remand is per se illegal and cannot stand the scrutiny of law. It is urged that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 introduces an entirely new and fresh cause of action, the relief claimed by addition of the area, is barred by limitation, no party could be added under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for the reason that there was no application and more over the question of limitation has not been considered by the learned court. 5. It is trite to observe that mere filing of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. or allowing it, does not determine the rights of a party which have to be adjudicated on the settled issues and the evidence led on those points. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, that also has to be determined on the facts and evidence as pleaded before the Court. 3 6. In these circumstances, this appeal is disposed of with the directions: 1. The learned trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on any fresh issue which may be settled by the amendment as also by addition of the party as directed by the learned appellate Court. 2. It will be open to the defendants to urge that the application for amendment is not in consonance with law and that it is barred by limitation or introduces an entirely fresh cause of action. 3. It will also be open to the appellants to urge before the learned trial Court that the addition of the party is against the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and that it is barred by limitation. All these pleas will be open to the appellants. The learned Court shall take note of these pleas while disposing of the suit. 7. The appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. Record, if any, be sent back forthwith. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 30th April, 2011. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. February 25, 2011(R)