SANJAY Vs. RAM BABU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is tenant's writ petition. In the S.C.C. Suit No. 22 of 1991 on the file of J.S.C.C., Mathura Ram Babu v. Vaishnav Das and others petitioner Sanjay is defendant No. 5. Petitioner first filed a written statement and thereafter application for amendment. In the written statement, two amendments were sought. One was that all the heirs of the original tenant Moti Lal had not been impleaded in the suit and the other was that the other three sons of Moti Lal (apart from Ghanshyam Das whose heirs are defendants) had also inherited the tenancy and such inheritance was never objected to by the plaintiff hence he was estopped from asserting otherwise. The latter plea was quite frivolous hence rightly rejected. The plea of nonjoinder of the parties has been allowed to be added in written statement. J.S.C.C. passed the order allowing one of the two amendments on 14.9.2006. Against the said order revision was filed being S.C.C. Revision No. 22 of 2006 which was dismissed by A.D.J./Special Judge Mathura on 6.4.2007 hence this writ petition. I do not find least error in the impugned orders. The main plea sought to be added has already been permitted to be added. The other paragraph sought to be added in written statement, i.e. paragraph 15 -A was rather frivolous and was rightly refused to be added. Para 9 -B sought to be added in the written statement was permitted to be added which was sufficient.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY , there is no merit in the writ petition, hence, it is dismissed. As the suit is of 1991, hence, J.S.C.C. Mathura is directed to decide the suit very expeditiously. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties shall be granted. If any adjournment is granted then it must be on payment of heavy cost which shall not be less than Rs. 500/ - per adjournment.