NARENDRA SINGH Vs. BHARTENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for declaration of title on the basis of registered deed for partition dated 23rd March. 1974 stated to have been acted upon between the parties, the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had filed a Joint written statement. Subsequently the defendant No. 4 son of Virendra Singh one of the defendant was added as a party and he had filed a separate written statement. He had sought to amend the said written statement which was refused by the learned Civil Judge, Kasganj, Distt. Etah by an order dated 3rd August, 1994 passed In O.S. No. 6 of 1979. The revision was dismissed by order dated 13th December. 1994 passed in Civil Revision No. 487 of 1994. Thereafter the defendant No. 3 filed an application for amendment which was also dismissed by the Impugned order dated 21st September. 1996. This order is since being challenged in this revisional application.

(2.) Mr. Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amendment sought for is in the nature of elucidation of statement already made and shall not change the nature and character of the defence neither it will introduce a new defence or change the front, therefore, this statement should have been allowed.

(3.) Mr. N. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that it is the same amendment, which was sought by the defendant No. 4 since been rejected, have been sought to be Incorporated. He further contended that the defendant No. 3 had filed an amendment in the joint written statement though the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not join him. He further contended that the entire matter was aimed to delay the process. The trial court's order, which is languish one. is perfectly Justified, therefore, this petition should be dismissed.