V C RISHI Vs. S L SALUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order of the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi dated 5th January 1985 whereby the application of the petitioner moved under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the objections was rejected.

(2.) . The petitioner is the objector in respect of execution of the decree obtained by respondents I to 5 against respondents 6 to 11 herein. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the premises in question as a tenant and the decree was obtained in his absence without making him a party. In the application for amendment, the petitioner has sought to give some details regarding the premises in his occupation, however the court below has refused to grant this amendment on the ground that these facts are already on record and. therefore, the amendment is not necessary. This amendment giving further particulars and details of property in possession of the petitioner is contained in paragraph 6(a),6(c) and 6(e) of the amendment application. A further amendment is sought for in paragraphs 6(b) and 6(d) wherein the petition wants to take an alternate plea that in case it is held that the petitioner is not a tenant then he had become an owner by adverse possession. This amendment has been refused by the court below on the ground that no alternate plea can be allowed to be taken by way of an amendment because in the objection it has been pleaded that he is a lawful tenant.

(3.) . Learned counsel for the respondents however submitted that the petitioner is continuing in possession for the last several years without paying any single farthing to the respondents and the application is moved only to delay the proceedings further. To this, the reply of the petitioner is that he has not accepted the ownership of the respondents and he is claiming tenancy under some other person.