PARKASHVEER Vs. SMT. CHAMPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parkashveer, one of the plaintiffs-appellants has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 2.12.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari, vide which the application of the appellants under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) To begin with, plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they along with defendants No. 27 to 36 have become owners of the suit land as defendants No.1 to 26 have lost the equity of redeemtion in respect of the land in question. It has been claimed in the suit that Bishna was in possession of suit land as mortgagee and after his death, the plaintiffs had been mortgagees in possession of the suit land. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land was mortgaged by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents in favour of Bishna vide mutation No. 186 dated 20.6.1899 for a sum of Rs. 11/- and the respondents failed to redeem the said land by payment of mortgage money and, therefore, the plaintiffs alongwith the proforma defendants have become owners of the suit land. After due trial, learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kosli dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.1.2007. The plaintiffs filed appeal against the said judgment and decree and during the pendency of the same, they applied for the amendment of the plaint. Their claim in the application is as under:-

(3.) Claiming that the complete details of the land in question is mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint, it has been averred that in para No. 3 of the plaint the land in dispute has been claimed as mortgaged vide mutation No. 186 dated 20.6.1899 for consideration of Rs. 11/- with the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The said land was not redeemed by the ancestor of defendants No. 1 to 26 and more than 102 years have passed since then on account of which, the plaintiffs have become owners in possession of the suit land. It is further averred that the defendants in their written statement had asserted that the land mortgaged vide mutation No. 186 was redeemed vide mutation No. 565 dated 7.7.1909. So, it was claimed by the defendants that the plaintiffs have wrongly averred in the plaint that the land in question was mortgaged vide mutation No. 186. It is further averred that the land mentioned in mutation No. 186 was mortgaged with Chajju Ram son of Tota Ram whereas the land in disputed was mortgaged by ancestor of defendants No. 1 to 26. It is, therefore, prayed that the plaint may be permitted to be amended by incorporating the following passage in para No. 3 of the plaint.