SHAHJAHAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Mohd.Adil Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd of July, 2009, passed by the District Judge, Faizabad, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the opposite party No.3 has been allowed.

(3.) The petitioner filed a suit for declaration to be the sole owner of the property in dispute and further for mandatory injunction to remove the possession of the opposite party No.3 from the property in dispute. During the course of trial of the suit the opposite party No.3 moved an application for amendment of the written statement, which was rejected. Then he filed revision against the order passed on the application, which was also dismissed. Then the opposite party No.3 preferred a writ petition bearing writ petition No.530 of 2007 (MS), which was disposed of with the direction to amend the written statement. The petitioner was permitted to file reply of such an amendment and the trial court was directed to frame necessary issues. Accordingly the trial court framed the additional issues. The petitioner sought permission to bring on record the documentary evidence, which was rejected. Then he preferred a writ petition bearing writ petition No.4260 (MS) of 2008. This court by means of order dated 9th of September, 2009 passed in the aforesaid writ petition allowed the petitioner to file documentary evidence, in rebuttal of the evidence led by the respondent No.3. Accordingly the trial court proceeded with the suit and decreed the petitioner's suit by means of order dated 12th of November, 2008. The opposite party No.3 challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court by way of appeal, which is pending for decision before the opposite party No.1. Now again at the stage of appeal the opposite party No.3 moved an application for further amendment of the written statement, against which the petitioner filed objection to the effect that by moving such an application the opposite party No.3 is adopting dilatory tactics to remain in occupation of the premises in dispute. Further he had already moved an application for amendment of the written statement, which was allowed, therefore, whatever amendment was required by him in the written statement that would have been proposed at first time of application of amendment moved by him. Considering the application for amendment as well as objection raised against that, the appellate court allowed the application for amendment by means of order dated 3rd of July, 2009, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.