MUNNA Vs. RAJ KISHORI DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri J. N. Mishra, advocate, for the caveator-respondents.

(2.) This is defendants second appeal. A suit was decreed and the appeal filed by the defendants stands dismissed. The substantial questions of law argued in this appeal are:

(3.) I have examined the impugned judgments. It is settled principle of law that the amendment can be brought at any stage. Admittedly, the suit was instituted in the year 1996 much before the Amended Civil Procedure Code came into existence. Besides, it is also noteworthy that the application for amendment was moved on 1.8.2003 which was allowed and a fresh issue was framed on 10.10.2003 but the defendant submitted to the amendment and did not raise any objection at that stage. In the circumstances, the order passed in the amendment application allowing the same attained finality. The written statement was filed by Banda Development Authority and it was pleaded that the land in question has been left for construction of a park and therefore, in view of the record No. 64/86 and also the provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 as well as the Building Byelaws, the map for construction could not be sanctioned. The park will be for general use of the public. The trial court had framed issue No. 1 specifically on the question as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint and issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided together. Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff holding that the map cannot be sanctioned on account of the aforesaid prohibitions and restrictions but issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs. 19,000 and interest at the rate of Rs. 12%.