MOHD ALI Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE both these writ petitions have arisen out the one and the same civil suit between the same parties, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) THE writ petition No. 1712 of 2001 was initially preferred by one Mohd. Ali, who was arrayed as defendant no. 1 in Civil Suit No. 520 of 1985, Kamruddin and others Vs. Mohd. Ali and others, which was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of the joint property. The petitioner has prayed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 2.7.1998 and 11.11.1992 passed by the respondent no. 1 and 2 respectively. By the order dated 11.11.1992, the trial court had allowed the application of the plaintiffs for amendment, paper no. 154 -Ka and by order dated 2.7.1998, the revision preferred by the defendant -petitioner has been dismissed.

(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition No. 1712 of 2001 (M/S) are that the respondent nos. 2 to 6 filed Civil Suit No. 520 of 1985 in the court of Civil Judge, Dehradun for partition of the suit property. The suit was contested by the petitioner and other respondents by filing their written statement, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Subsequently, on 7.6.1992, the plaintiffs filed an application for amendment of the plaint, which is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the plaintiff -respondents filed amendment application after seven years. The petitioner -defendant filed objection against the amendment application before the trial court contending that by the proposed amendment, admissions made by the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to be withdrawn, hence the application is liable to be rejected. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court allowed the amendment application, paper no. 154 -Ka vide order dated 11.11.1992. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 135 of 1992 before the Additional District Judge, Dehradun. The revisional court after hearing both the parties, the Revisional Court came to the conclusion that by the amendment, there is no question of withdrawing of admissions made by the plaintiffs. There was mention of the property in the plaint from before and the nature of suit did not change by the amendment. Ultimately, the revisional court dismissed the revision vide judgment and order dated 2.7.1998, which gave rise to the Writ Petition No. 1712 of 2001.