FARIDDUIN Vs. TAHIRA & 6 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and learned counsel for respondent no.8. Despite service and after revision of list, respondent no.1 did not appear.

(2.) IN Original Suit No.57 of 1999 filed by Faridduin and others an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was moved for adding prayer for cancellation of two sale deeds, one of 19.8.1966, and another on 6.9.1999. The objection was filed by the respondents. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Balrampur, after hearing the parties, rejected the application for amendment. Civil Revision No.16 of 2001 was filed, which was partly allowed by the District Judge, Balrampur. The rejection of amendment order pertaining to sale deed dated 19.8.1966 was maintained and the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was modified, and an application for amendment pertaining to cancellation of sale deed dated 6.9.1999 was allowed. Feeling aggrieved, this petition has been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order by both the court belows regarding prayer for cancellation of sale deed dated 19.8.1966 is erroneous, as he has mentioned in the amendment application that he came to know of sale deed dated 19.8.1966 on 27.11.1999, when defendant no.1 filed copy of the above sale deed in the court. In view of this, it was submitted that the findings by both the court belows are erroneous. It was further submitted that the prayer for cancellation of sale deed dated 19.8.1966, being time barred, is mixed question of fact and law, and the trial court could have framed issue on this point after allowing the amendment application, and then the issue could have been decided.