PRAVEEN KUMAR Vs. KALAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant civil revision, preferred under section 115 of CPC, is directed against the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, whereby the amendment application filed by the revisionists/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC has been dismissed.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that the revisionists/plaintiffs filed a suit being O.S. No.43 of 2014 to declare the sale deeds dated 11.05.2009 and 22.04.2013 as null and void, as well as, for a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction. On presentation of suit, notices were issued to the respondents/defendants, who filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint. Revisionists/plaintiffs filed their objections to the said application. Thereafter, the revisionists/plaintiffs moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking certain amendments in their objections. Respondents/defendants filed their objections to the amendment application. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the amendment application vide its order dated 10.12.2015. This order is not challenged. Thereafter, the revisionists/plaintiffs moved an application seeking amendment in the plaint, thereby praying that after paragraph 11 in the plaint, following paragraph 11-A may be added:-

(3.) Respondents/Defendants filed their objections to the amendment application stating that the plaintiffs are not the recorded tenure holders; earlier also amendment application was filed by the plaintiffs which has been rejected by the court; the amendment sought is not imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the suit and has been filed in order to cure the defects; and the amendment application is not legally maintainable.