RAMA NAND Vs. AMRIT LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the defendants in a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiffs for permanent injunction. The suit was filed in the year 1988 and has been continuing for 22 years.

(2.) The plaintiffs had sought an amendment in the plaint on at least three occasions. The first amendment had been allowed in 1992. The other amendment which was filed in relation to a fact that had intervened during the pendency of the suit, namely, an allegation that during the pendency of the suit defendants had encroached upon the disputed land further by setting up a Maraha (thatched roof). This application under Order 6 Rule 17 was moved in the year 2001 and was allowed on 4th September, 2001. The suit proceeded thereafter and after the close of evidence and cross-examination, the petitioners who are the defendants, moved an application on 3.4.2010 praying for an indulgence to file an additional written statement. This application for leave to file an additional written statement has been rejected on 19.5.2011 and the revision filed against the same has been dismissed on 31.1.2012. Aggrieved by these orders, the defendants are in this writ petition before this Court.

(3.) Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court should take a liberal view and allow an amendment sought at any stage of the proceedings. The defect of not filing an additional written statement arose on account of ignorance of the petitioners who are not well versed in law and also on account of lack of proper legal advice or wrong advice of the counsel. It is urged by Sri Shiv Nath Singh that at the stage of final arguments when the petitioners engaged another counsel Mr. Ram Adhin Maurya, he after an inspection of the entire file at the time of final argument advised them, that a mistake has been committed by not filing an additional written statement. Based on this legal advise, the application seeking leave to file additional written statement was moved.