original defendants filed their written statement. Later on, the plaintiff filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint and also prayed for impleadment of Drig Pal Singh and Brij Pal Singh as defendants no.5 and 6. The said application was allowed by the trial court by order dated 29.5.2012. The newly impleaded defendants no.5 and 6 filed their written statement. Again, the petitioner applied for amendment of the plaint. The trial curt allowed the same by order dated 4.5.2016. On 22.8.2016, defendant no.1 Shiv Balak died. The petitioner filed an application for substitution of his heirs. The said application was allowed on 5.10.2016. The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant were given time to file additional written statement. However, despite sufficient service, they did not file additional written statement but kept on seeking adjournment. The trial court allowed the adjournment application upon payment of cost of Rs.300/- fixing 1.4.2017 and further observed that it would be the last opportunity to file additional written statement. The defendants still failed to file additional written statement. The court, therefore, proceeded to frame issues vide order dated 10.5.2017. On 1.11.2017 the petitioner moved an application stating that cost of Rs.400/- has not been paid by the defendants to him and, therefore, their opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses be closed. The trial court by order dated 1.11.2017 forfeited the right of the defendants to cross-examine P.W.1. It granted last opportunity to the defendants to deposit cost fixing 14.11.2017. It seems that neither the cost nor additional written statement was filed. On 5.12.2017, the defendants filed an application seeking recall of order dated 1.11.2017, by which their right to cross-examine P.W.1 was closed. The said application has been allowed by the trial court by order impugned in petition bearing no.6681 of 2019. Another
