OM PRAKASH DAS Vs. VICHAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under Sec. 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called as "C.P.C.') arises out of order dtd. 8/1/2021 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fast Track Court, Gorakhpur in Original Suit No. 400 of 2017, whereby the amendment application moved by the revisionist under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. being Paper No. 25/K2 for striking out the name of defendant no. 3 from array of parties was rejected.

(2.) Facts in nutshell, are that plaintiff-revisionist filed a suit for declaration declaring him the Mahant of one Sant Kabir Math. Relief of permanent injunction was also claimed against defendants from not interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the property of the Math and also not to evict the plaintiff. An amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 was filed by plaintiff in the year 2020 after the suit was being contested by defendant no. 3 for striking off her name from the plaint. The application was contested by defendant no. 3 by filing her objection being Paper No. 28Ga and affidavit 29Ga on the ground that the property in dispute was entered into the name of her father Ram Nagina in whose favour one Jamuna Das had executed the Will. Ram Nagina had executed a Will in favour of defendant no. 3 on 5/1/2002, and after the death of Ram Nagina, name of defendant no. 3 was entered in the revenue records vide order dtd. 20/3/2007. Against the said order, a revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur who dismissed the revision on 8/4/2013, against which writ petition has been filed before this Court which is pending. According to defendant no. 3, her name is still recorded in the revenue records and the order dtd. 20/3/2007 is still standing in the revenue records. The court below after the exchange of pleadings vide order dtd. 8/1/2022 rejected the application of the plaintiff-revisionist. Hence, the present revision.

(3.) Sri A.P. Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submitted that plaintiff is the dominus litis, and is master of the suit. According to him, defendant no. 3 is neither a necessary or a proper party and thus plaintiff sought for amendment for deleting the name of defendant no. 3. He then submitted that court below did not consider the true import of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. and passed the order on non existent and unfounded grounds.