BHAGWAN DAYAL Vs. PARASARTHI RAJGOPALACHARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, by the plaintiff-applicant, is directed against the order dated 20.8.1991, passed by the Civil Judge, Saharanpur allowing the application of the defendant-applicant for amendment of the written statement by incorporating counter-claim.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case so far as the relevant for the purposes of the present revision are that the plaintiff filed the original suit No. 200 of 1983 in the court of Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur for an injunction restraining the defendant-opposite parties from acting as the President Secretary and Joint Secretary of the Mission. The plaint case was that the defendant No. 1 was never appointed as President of the Mission by the founder but on basis of some purported documents, he was declaring himself as the successor of the founder. The defendants contested the said suit. The defendant No. 2 had filed a separate written statement and the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 filed a written statement in the year 1984. It appears that initially an ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants contested the said application but the court below confirmed the ex parte interim order. Against the said order, a First Appeal From Order No. 43fcof 1984 was filed in this Court which was allowed on the 25.2.1988 and the interim injunction order was set aside by this Court. It appears that during this time, the suit itself was dismissed for default and was subsequently restored to its original number in the year 1990. After the suit was restored an application was filed in February', 1992 on behalf of the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 for amendment of the written statement. It was stated in the said application that after getting the suit restored on 13.3.1990, the plaintiffs are dying to interfere in the peaceful working of the defendant No. 1 as President and defendant No. 3 as Secretary and the defendant No. 2 as Joint Secretary of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, Shahjahanpur. It was, therefore, prayed that amendment in the written statement be allowed by incorporating paragraph Nos. 54 and 55 in the written statement for incorporating the plea that the plaintiffs are now trying to interfere with the functioning of the defendants and hence they may be restrained by an order of the court from interfering in the peaceful working of the said defendants and this be treated a counter-claim. Further paragraph No. 55 was proposed to be added showing the valuation of the counter-claim as Rs. 5 lacs (Rupees five lacs) and paying a court fee of Rs. 500.00 (Rupees five hundred) for the same. It would be worth-while to quota paragraph No. 55 of the proposed amendment to the written statement as the cause of action in the counter-claim has disclosed therein.

(3.) The court below after considering the amendment application (paper no. 45-Ka) the objection filed thereto and after hearing the counsel for the parties, allowed the defendants' application vide the order dated 20.8.1991. The court below was of the view that counter-claim which is being sought to be incorporated in the written statement by means of the proposed amendment, has already been taken in the written statement of defendant No. 2. The same is, therefore, on record. If the same counter-claim is permitted to be taken by the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in their written statement by means of the proposed amendment that will not change the nature of the defence. It would be in the interest, of justice to allow the said amendment as the same will help in the final adjudication of the case. Aggrieved against the said decision, the plaintiff-applicant has preferred the present revision before this Court