RAHMAT BUX RAHMANI Vs. SARLA MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Mr. Sachin Srivastava, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party. Heard Mr. Aftab Ahmad, learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as Mr. Sachin Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) The civil revision has been filed against the order dated 28.9.2011 by which the learned Court below has rejected the application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the revisionist tried to insist that the opposite party had filed SCC Suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. During pendency of the said suit, she sold the property in question to one Kitabunisha wife of Mr. Shaban Ali who holds the power of attorney on her behalf. In the said suit, substitution application was moved by the present plaintiff after the death of her husband by stating that she is the sole legal heir, although the widow daughter-in-law Smt. Sweta Malhotra is also the legal heir and necessary party in the case. The revisionist had filed objections but the learned Court below had allowed the substitution application. Thereafter, the revisionist had moved the amendment application, copy of amendment application is annexed as Annexure No. 11. By the said amendment application, the revisionist wanted to bring on record the relevant fact that Sweta Malhotra is a necessary party in the said suit and the suit in question is defective due to non-joinder of necessary party. The other amendment which the revisionist wanted was that the alleged power of attorney dated 23.2.2010 is a forged document.