ASIYA BEGUM Vs. INAM KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 8/5/2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC, Court No. 39, Shahjahanpur in Original Suit No. 101 of 2012 (Smt. Asiya Begum Vs. Inam Khan and others) rejecting an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amendment in the plaint. The revision against the order passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC, Court No. 39, Shahjahanpur dtd. 8/5/2023 has also been dismissed by judgment and order dtd. 20/10/2023.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are Original Suit No. 101 of 2012 (Smt. Asiya Begum Vs. Inam Khan and others) was instituted by plaintiff-petitioner for the relief of cancellation of sale deed dtd. 4/4/2012 and also for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute i.e. Khasra No. 880 area 4 acres (New No. 1002). On being noticed, the defendant-respondents contested the suit and filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff-petitioner filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. being paper No. 84-A for amendment in the plaint on 24/3/2023. The said application was opposed by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by filing objection on 7/4/2023. The trial court by order dtd. 8/5/2023 rejected the amendment application filed by the petitioner. The revision against the said order has also been dismissed by order dtd. 20/10/2023. Hence the present writ petition.

(3.) Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner has not sought introduction of new facts, which may account to change of cause of action, withdrawal of admission. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that amendments sought were clarificatory in nature of the facts, which were already pleaded. The proposed amendments were also necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and no prejudice was caused to the defendants-respondents. It has been further contended by counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had knowledge of the facts, which he wants to add, at the time of filing of the suit and the case law relied upon by the plaintiff is not applicable to the facts of the case as the amendment sought by the plaintiff is neither clarificatory in nature nor new facts are to be incorporated and by allowing the amendment instead of clarification, it is possible that the cause of action be changed. It has also been contended by counsel for the petitioner that the revisional court dismissed the revision stating that the plaintiff is trying to delay the disposal of the suit and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trial court, without recording any independent finding on the points raised by the revisionist. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated in paragraph No. 18 of the writ petition that only issues have been framed in the suit and the evidence has yet not been started.