MOHD. KHALEEL Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BALRAMPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgment and order impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners are defendants in regular suit No. 186 of 1997 which was filed by the respondents no. 3 to 5 for the relief of permanent injunction. When the evidence of the plaintiff opposite party was over, the petitioners applied for permission to amend the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It was said in the aforesaid application that the disputed house was purchased by the respondent from Smt. Sayara, wife of Mohd. Ayyub by means of a registered sale deed. Smt. Sayara filed a suit No. 138 of 1997 on 25.04.1997. In another suit No. 186 of 1997, Haleem was defendant. When suit No. 138 of 1997 was filed, Smt. Sayara sold the house to Khuda Bux without the permission of the court. The petitioners filed their written statement in the present suit No. 186 of 1997, and in paragraps 18 and 19, it was stated by them that regular suit No. 138 of 1997 was finally decided on 16.02001 and since the petitioners had filed their written statement before the disposal of the aforesaid suit, therefore, they could not incorporate the aforesaid pleadings in their written statement. It was also said that Mohd. Ayyub had executed a Will in respect of his entire movable and immovable property in favour of the petitioner no. 2 and after filing of the written statement, the name of the petitioner no. 2 has also been mutated in the revenue record which needs to be incorporated in the written statement. It was also said that the petitioners are not well educated and they had disclosed the aforesaid facts to their previous counsel but he could not incorporate the aforesaid facts in the written statement. The petitioners also stated that the proposed amendment in the written statement was necessary for proper adjudication of controversy.

(3.) The respondent filed objection and opposed the amendment application on the ground that the amendment has been sought at a very belated stage. The facts sought to be incorporated in the written statement are afterthought. The evidence of the plaintiff was already over and the petitioners being defendant, only want to delay the final disposal of the suit. The learned courts below after considering the submissions of the parties, rejected the amendment application by its order dated 07.02.2008.