RISING SUN PRESS DELHI Vs. RAM NARAINDELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition directed against the order made by the trial Court on 3rd January, 1972 is being disposed of along with Civil Revision No. 173 of 1972 by this order because both of them are connected with each other.

(2.) A suit was filed to which the petitioners were impleaded as defendant No. 2. Shri Ram Narain respondent to these two petitions instituted the suit on the footing that he was the owner in possession of house No. 415. Chitla Darwaza, Chawari Bazar. Delhi and that the defendants who were seeking to instal a meter on one of the walls of the said house had no right to fix the wire and the meter and that the Court might pass a decree permanently restraining the defendants from installing any meter on the wall of house No. 415. Defendants No. 2 (the petitioners) filed a written statement dated the 31st of July, 1970, in which after raisins several preliminary objections replying to facts in paragraph 1 it was stated that para. No. 1 of the plaint was not being denied. In para. 1 the respondent-plaintiff, had clearly asserted that he was the owner in possession of house No. 415. The reply in the written statement did not controvert that assertion.

(3.) In the course of the litigation the petitioners filed an application under Order 6. Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying that they might be allowed to substitute paragraph 1 of the written statement on merits. Before detailing the amendment the defendants-petitioners in paragraph 3 of the said application alleged that the plaintiff was claiming ownership of house No. 415 on the basis of a purchase made by him from Shri Sant Lal Tandon who had in turn purchased the property from Shri Mohan Lal. It was averred that the sale in favour of Shri Sant Lal had been impugned through a suit instituted by Shri Sohan Lal and others. In that suit. it was alleged, a decree was passed declaring that the sale in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent was void, ineffective and inoperative and that the appeal preferred against the said decree having been dismissed the High Court also dismissed a second appeal preferred against the decree made by the Senior Sub-Judge. On that basis defendant No. 2 sought to amend paragraph 1 of the written statement on merits by substituting: