SAMBHAVNATH DIGAMBAR JAIN Vs. MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against an order of II Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ratlam, dated 24.12.1988, passed in C.S. No. 6-A/82. Whereby the learned Judge rejected the application of the defendant moved under Order VI Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered public trust, registered under the M.P. Public Trust Act and is managing the temple and its property. The respondents No. 1 to 4 instituted a suit before the learned lower Court for setting aside the order of registration of trust, dated 13.10.1982. In the said suit, the respondent sought the declaration that the temple and its property belong to their section. The petitioner filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiffs/respondents No. 1 to 4 on 13.9.1982. While registering the trust the learned Registrar of Public Trusts declared a portion of the property of the trust in which a girls school was being run, to be the property of the school. This fact was denied in the written statement of the petitioner but no counter claim was filed regarding the same. It is nowhere provided that the counter claim must be filed at the time of filing of the written statement.

(3.) It is true that the learned Additional District Judge has rejected the amendment application. The provisions under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. are interlocutory in nature. The question is as to whether the order is revisable.