KAMLESH S/O. JAGANNATH SURYAVANSHI Vs. KALYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule Returnable Forthwith. Heard Finally By The consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) The Petitioners Had Instituted Regular Civil Suit No.742 of 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Nagpur for the relief of declaration and permanent mandatory injunction against the respondents in respect of the suit property bearing plot no. 51, Khasra No.25/1, 26/2, 27/1 and 27/4, Mauza Gadga, Gokulpeth, Nagpur during pendency of the suit. During pendency of the suit, respondent nos. 1 to 3 sold the property to respondent no.4 without permission from the trial Court. Respondent no.4 was also impleaded as a necessary party in the proceedings as the petitioner is interested in claiming the same reliefs against the added defendant in the pending suit as title of the defendants under the alleged Sale deed dated 28.03.1939 to the suit property is under challenge as forged, illegal and bogus. Thereby the added defendant, as a transferee pendente lite, has no valid and legal title to the suit property. The grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court had rejected the application for amendment in the plaint by the order impugned dated 13.10.2011. The trial Court erred to believe that the petitioners are claiming any new relief against the added defendant.

(3.) Learned Counsel For The Respondent In Terms Of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Gopal Sah Alias Shiv Gopal Sahu, 2007 14 SCC 120 submitted that unless satisfactory explanation is given by the plaintiff, the amendment could not be allowed.