LAWS(P&H)-1991-10-91

RAMESH KUMAR Vs. BIMLA

Decided On October 01, 1991
RAMESH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
BIMLA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against order dated 19th Dec. 1990, passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Hans, vide which application filed by the defendant-petitioner for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.

(2.) Facts, in brief, may first be noticed. Prem Kumar sold 28K 10M of land whereas Dharam Pal sold 3K 2M of land situate at village Hansi vidt registered sale deed dated 22nd June, 1984. Respondent Bimla Devi filed a suit for possession by way of pre emption against Ramesh Kumar, minor, son of Gokal Chand, who had purchased the land, reference of which has been given above. The preferential right of pre-emption of the plaintiff is based upon her being a co-sharer in the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, Ramesh Kumar filed an application under O. 6. R. 17 Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of written statement so as to plead that his father Gokal Chand is also a co-sharer in the land which was a co-parcenery property and inasmuch as he (Ramesh Kumar) had a share in said co-parcenery property by birth, the plaintiff would have no preferential right to seek pre-emption of the suit land. It will be useful to extract para 7 of the application which contains the amendment sought for by the petitioner:-

(3.) For the reasons aforesaid whereas the order of the Sub Judge declining amendment of the written statement on the limited point death with by him is upheld, the order for not even considering the first part of the amendment and yet dismissing the application as such is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to incorporate the plea as reflected in para 7 of the application and reproduced above. The revision is disposed of in the manner fully indicated above. It may be made clear that this order shall not be taken as an expression of opinion with regard to validity of the plea sought to be raised by the petitioner and the matter will be gone into by the court independently of what has been stated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.