PANDHARINATH Vs. KESHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.555 of 1999 for cancellation of the registered sale deed, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1, on 14.05.1996, with some consequential prayer for insertion of the name of the plaintiff in R.O.R. in respect of the aforesaid land, which is the subject matter of the sale deed. Pending suit, after the evidence of witness No.5 for the plaintiff over, after a gap of seven (7) years, the petitioner-plaintiff had filed an application Exh.129 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint. The respondents-defendants have strongly resisted the said application by filing their say. Learned 6th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Aurangabad by order dated 27.04.2007, below Exh.129 in Regular Civil Suit No.555 of 1999, rejected the said application. Hence, this Writ Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that the land Survey No.21/3 to the extent of 1 Acre 10 Guntha is the ancestral land of the petitioner-plaintiff. During implementation of the consolidation scheme, this particular land Survey No.21/3 was not converted into land Gut No.47, as it has been revealed from the evidence of witness No.5, who is the Taluka Inspector of Land Records at Aurangabad.

(3.) The learned counsel submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has tried his best to obtain the copies of the consolidation statement on the earlier occasion prior to examination of witness No.5 as his witness before the Court. However, he was informed that the consolidation statement pertaining to the said land has been misplaced. The learned counsel submits that witness No.5 has placed on record the statement of the consolidation. The learned counsel submits that if the ancestral land of the petitioner-plaintiff, bearing Survey No.21/3 to the extent of 50 R. is not included in Gut No.47, then it is necessary for the plaintiff to carry out the amendment in the plaint. By way of proposed amendment, the petitioner-plaintiff has prayed for the declaration that the land as per the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed is not the part and parcel of land Gut No.47 but it is a land of old Survey No.21/3 of the plaintiff situated at Sellud, Taluka and District Aurangabad and also seeking the amendment about mentioning the old Survey No.21/3 along with the boundaries, to the extent of 50 R., of the land.