MANGILAL MAHAJAN Vs. KASTURCHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 25.07.2017 by which application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC [I.A.No.9] has been rejected.

(2.) The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 being plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration, partition and permanent injunction. The present petitioner has been impleaded as defendant No.1 in the suit who has filed his written- statement.

(3.) On the basis of pleadings, issues have been framed and the case is fixed for plaintiffs' evidence. Before plaintiffs could start their evidence, the defendant No.1/ petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the written-statement. By way of amendment, the defendant No.1 wanted to take plea of adverse possession over the suit property. According to the defendant No.1, he is in possession since 1968, therefore, he has perfected his title by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs have opposed the said application by filing reply. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 25.07.2017 has rejected the application on the ground that the proposed amendment is not necessary for adjudication of the case and by rejecting the said amendment there would not be any possibility of multiplicity of the proceedings. Hence, the present petition before this Court.