NIAMATULLAH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. In this petition caveat has been filed for respondents Nos. 3 to 13 by Shri M. A. Qadeer, Advocate. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that plaintiff (now represented by respondents Nos. 3 to 13) filed C. C. C. Suit No. 195 of 1971 for ejectment of the defendant from the accommodation in dispute. This suit was decreed on 11-11-1985. Civil Revision No. 575 of 1985 was filed in the court of District Judge, Allahabad, which too was dismissed on 10-8-1987. Thereafter, challenging the aforesaid orders, writ petition No. 20248 of 1987 was filed which was also dismissed. The decree was put in for execution which was registered as Execution Case No. 179 of 1985. In this execution, an objection was filed by petitioner under Section 47, C. P. C. questioning the executability of the decree on various grounds including that the decree is not executable for ejectment from house No. 39 (now new number 42 ). This objection was registered as Misc. Case No. 114 of 1987. However, the objection was rejected on 18-11- 1987. The order rejecting the objection was challenged in Civil Revision No. 372 of 1988. This revision was dismissed in default. Thereafter, application for restoration was filed which too was dismissed on 5- 11-1988. Then an application for restoring the restoration application was filed which was. also rejected on 2-3-1989. These orders were challenged in Writ Petition No. 4600 of 1989. In this petition stay order was granted on 15-7-1989. However, this Court after hearing the parties, vacated the stay order on 22- 8-1989. Then, the respondents made an application for amending warrant for delivery of possession by mentioning house No. 39/42 in place of 39/43. This application was rejected on 27-6-1995. Aggrieved by this order, the decree-holders filed Civil Revision No. 958 of 1995, Respondents then made an application for amendment of the plaint of S. C. C. Suit No. 195 of 1971 for correcting the relief clause wherein by mistake house number was wrongly described as 39/43 which in fact should have been 39/42. This application was opposed by petitioner. However, learned trial court allowed this application vide order dated 30-1-1996. Aggrieved by this order petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 53 of 1996. Both the aforesaid revisions have been heard together and decided by a common order dated 7-2-1996, aggrieved by which petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner lastly submitted that if the court below allowed the plaint to be amended, the defendant petitioner should have been permitted a fresh opportunity to file written statement and the course adopted by the court below is violative of the principles of natural justice.