RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. ZILA PARISHAD BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioners who were plaintiff in a suit after dismissal of the suit filed appeal before the lower appellate court and before the lower appellate court filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint at the appellate stage. This application has been' dismissed by the lower appellate court with the observation as under : 'Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that sufficient pleadings taking the grounds of acquiring title by way of adverse possession has already been taken by the plaintiff/appellant in suit. The plaintiff has not given the sufficient reasons as to why he could not assert these words in suit at earliest opportunity, so the amendment application is not liable to be allowed. These facts were well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. This amendment application being paper No. Ka -38 has no merit and therefore, liable to be rejected.'

(3.) RELYING upon the aforesaid principles of law laid down by the Apex Court, in my opinion, the order passed by the lower appellate court is explanatory in nature and in consonance with the taw laid down by the Apex Court which does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.