LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-23

BHU DEO Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH

Decided On September 12, 2006
BHU DEO Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT JUDGE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the private respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are all real brothers. Two suits were filed by the petitioner against the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5. Original Suit No. 327 of 1992 was fur partition; and Original Suit No. 418 of 1992 was for permanent injunction. After filing of the written statements by the respondents in both the suits, the petitioner moved separate application for amendment of his plaint, which was allowed by the trial Court vide two separate orders dated 13-10-1999. Defendants filed two separate revisions against the aforesaid orders, which have been allowed by two separate orders dated 11-8-2000 and the amendment sought has been disallowed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders dated 11-8-2000, these two writ petitions have been filed. Since both the writ petitions arise out of the same cause of action and also out of similar set of facts, they are being decided together.

(2.) I have heard Sri V. K. Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are being disposed of at this stage.

(3.) The suit was filed by the petitioner in the year 1992 against his three real brothers, in which written statements were filed in the same year. Replication was filed by the petitioner on 2-1 -1993. The amendment application was thereafter filed by the petitioner in March, 1999 whereby the facts relating to the sale of certain properties by the father of the parties in the year 1978 was sought to be added, and certain parties to whom the land was sold were also sought to be impleaded. The prayer clause was also sought to be amended to the effect that share of the property claimed by the petitioner, which was 1/4th earlier be increased to 19/24. The said application was filed without giving any explanation for the delay in moving the same except that, such facts and prayers were left out by mistake.