SALEEM Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BALRAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner has purchased a plot No. 6459/1 (new plot No. 2340) situate in village Utraula, district Balrampur by a sale deed executed in his favour on 19. 6. 1978. He was also put in possession of the same, and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. Usrnan, Rajjab Ali (opposite party No. 3 and 4 in the present writ petition) and Mahboob, the predecessor in title to opposite party Nos. 5 to 9, started interfering in the possession of the petitioner on the aforesaid land as such the petitioner, on 16. 4. 1986, filed a regular suit No. 132 of 1986 for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, opposite parties started raising forcible construction over a part of the disputed land and also sold some land and as such petitioner moved an application for amendment seeking relief for cancellation of the sale deeds and for impleadment of such transferees, who were not on the record, as it will have the adverse effect on the title of the petitioner over the land in question. The defendants filed objection against the said application for amendment alleging that the plea and relief for cancellation of sale deed is barred by time and in case the amendment is allowed, it will change the very nature of the suit.

(2.) THE learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, District Balrampur, after hearing the parties rejected the said application inter-alia on the ground that the sale deed was executed in the year 1987 whereas amendment application has been moved in the year 1997 and as such it is barred by time and accordingly rejected the application for impleadment by the order dated 20. 1. 2005. The order dated 20. 1. 2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Utraula was challenged in Civil Revision No. 10 of 2005 but the learned Revisional Court also dismissed the revision as such the petitioner has approached this Court by means of instant writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that both the Courts below committed an error in not considering the fact that the suit which has been filed by the petitioner was at early stage at the relevant time and even the issues were not framed and as such there would have been no harm, if the application for impleadment is allowed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the description of only one sale deed was made in the written statement filed in the year 1987 and with regard to the existence of the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 3, he came to know only in March, 1997 and as such the petitioner without and undue delay made application for impleadment.