ADITYA NARAYAN Vs. CHANDU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision is filed against the order allowing application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC and rejection of petitioner's application under Order VI Rule 16, CPC.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS have filed a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction. He prayed for declaration that the sale-deed dated 21-4-1970 be declared null and void. Counter-claim for perpetual injunction is filed by defendants 1 and 2. It was contended that the dispute regarding challenge to the sale-deed cannot be heard by the Civil Court as the jurisdiction vests with the Sub-Divisional Officer under the provisions of "m. P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI DHARAKON KA UDHAR DENE WALON KE BHUMI HADAPANE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM, 1976" (hereinafter, referred to as the "adhiniyam") and it was prayed that the pleadings regarding cancellation of the sale-deed should be deleted from the plaint by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have moved an application under Order VI Rule 17, CPC that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title and cancellation of the sale-deed and the Trial Court vide order dated 15-4-1996 has held that jurisdiction to consider this aspect vests with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghogarh and the Trial Court accordingly passed orders. Sub-Divisional Officer, Raghogarh has passed orders on 17-1-1997 that the case does not fall within the provisions of the Adhiniyam, therefore, amendment was sought. Petitioner objected to the amendment stating therein that the interim order passed on 15-4-1996 had become final and the present amendment cannot be permitted, once Trial Court has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding the nature of transaction in the sale deed the Trial Court cannot invoke its jurisdiction by allowing the application for amendment. Trial Court after hearing the parties has allowed the application for amendment.

(3.) ONLY question involved in this revision is whether amendment could be allowed and whether earlier order in the same proceedings dated 15-4-1996 will operate as res judicata.