ARVIND SINGH Vs. VITH A D J GHAZIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed against the order -dated 14 -1 -2000 passed by respondent No. 1 whereby the amendment application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts arising out of the present writ petition is that one late Smt. Rukmani Devi was having a large number of agricultural properties. In order to protect the said property she created a Trust. This Trust was created after dedication of entire property to Lord Shiva and a temple of Lord Shiva was constructed from her own consideration. In order to give authenticity the petitioner was appointed as a trustee under the guardianship of his natural father Sri Ram Avtar Singh. Respondent No. 2 who is a neighbour of late Smt. Rukmani Devi in order to grab the property deceived her by getting a sale -deed executed in his favour as well as got himself appointed as a trustee of the said Trust. On coming to know the aforesaid fact, Smt. Rukmani Devi filed suit No. 78 of 1974 requesting for alleged cancellation of sale -deed with a plea that she has never executed any sale -deed in favour of respondent No. 2. The aforesaid matter came up to the High Court in Second Appeal No. 2273 of 1981 dated 21 -2 -1994. As Smt. Rukmani Devi died on 12 -3 -1983 during pendency of the appeal, a substitution application was filed on her behalf by the petitioner but the same was rejected on the ground that no adoption deed has been filed by the petitioner in the appeal. It appears that there was a notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the appeal was abated. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been adopted son of Smt. Rukmani Devi by a registered adoption deed, which has been executed. Smt. Rukmani Devi has also filed suit No. 99 of 1975 requesting therein that a correction be taken in place of trustee and in place of respondent No. 2 the name of the petitioner be incorporated. The trial Court after hearing the parties at length and after considering the entire material available on record decreed the suit vide its order dated 15 -5 -1979 and accordingly directed for correction of the registered trust -deed. Respondent No. 2 knowing fully that he has got no right or title over the property, filed an appeal before respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the respondent No. 1 the petitioner filed an application for substitution which was duly allowed by the order dated 12 -1 -1984. The appeal was kept pending and in the meantime an application for amendment seeking amendment in the pleadings which was necessary for just disposal of the case and the controversy involved between the parties, the respondent without considering the legal implications involved in the case, rejected the said application.

(3.) IT has further been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the amendment sought by the petitioner is neither changing the nature of the suit nor adversely affected in any manner to the respondent No. 2. It has further been submitted that now it is well settled that amendment can be considered and allowed by the Court at any stage in order to avoid multiplicity of the litigation. The Apex Court as well this Court has held that the amendment sought by the parties ought to have been allowed instead of indulging in too technicalities. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the judgment reported in 2003(1) JCLR 873 (SC) : 2003 JIR 409 (SC) : 2003 (1) A.W.C. 18 (S.C.), Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu and Anr. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment the petitioner submits that there is no straightjacket formula, which can be laid down. The fact remains that a mere delay cannot be the ground for refusing a prayer for amendment. In such a way, the petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent No. 1 is liable to be set aside and the amendment application filed on behalf of the petitioner be allowed.