RADHA SARAN DUBEY Vs. RAM NIWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 10th July. 1998, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Second Court. Mathura, in Original Suit No. 71 of 1992 has been challenged. By the said order, the revisionists' application for amendment, which is Annexure-II to the said application has since been rejected. Mr. Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the revisionist contends that in view of the amendment that was allowed in the plaint as Is apparent from paragraph 1 of the amended plaint, Thakur Govind Dev Ji Maharaj has been described as the owner of the property to whom the plaintiffs are paying rent. Therefore, in order to prove their title, it has become necessary to implead Sebalt of Thakur Govind Dev Jl Maharaj, and. therefore, by means of amendment, it was sought to implead one Anjan Kumar Dev Goswami as party defendant to the proceeding with the added amendments to the extent that the said Anjan Kumar Dev Goswaml who is Sebait of Thakur Govind Dev Ji Maharaj had threatened the plaintiff of dispossession on 31st March. 1998 and that the cause of action had arose on 31st March. 1998. when the plaintiff was threatened of dispossession. Therefore, this amendment should have been allowed In order to determine the real question in issue. The same neither changes the nature of the suit nor Introduces a new cause of action.

(2.) Mr. V. K. Birla. learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand contends that there has been inordinate delay in preferring the amendment. Inasmuch as paragraph 1 of the plaint was amended in 1993. Whereas the application for amendment was made in 1998. He secondly contends that the plaintiffs are not allowing the suit to proceed and by virtue of such amendment, they are dragging on the suit. He further contends that the plaintiffs had filed amendment earlier, they could have incorporated the present amendment on earlier occasion as well.

(3.) 1 have heard both the learned counsel at length.