NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. JEET SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated Jan. 23, 1990, whereby the amendment in the written statement has been allowed after remand of the case by the trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for possession on Nov. 15, 1938. Joint written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants on Oct. 10, 1984. The suit was decreed, but on appeal, the said decree was set aside and the case was remanded on Feb. 22, 1986. After remand when the parties had closed their evidence, one of the defendants moved the application for amendment of the written statement by virtue of which he wanted to plead that he had become the owner by adverse possession. That application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff on the ground that the application was mala fide. No such plea was available to him at that stage. The learned trial Court observed that after the remand of the case, the defendant-applicant had not led any evidence and the application had been moved by the defendant-applicant disclosing the cause of his evidence. Thus according to the trial Court no much delay had been occasioned in filing the amendment application. The same was allowed on payment of Rs. 100.00 as costs.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for seeking amendment of the written statement was not bona fide. Earlier, joint written statement filed on behalf of seven defendants and now only one of the defendants had moved the application. No such plea was ever taken in appeal at the time of remand. Nor there was anything in the remand order as to allow the said application. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Mohan Lal Vs. Anandibai A.I.R. 1971 Supreme Court 2177 and Fauja Singh Vs. Jaswant Singh, 1978 Punjab Law Reporter 456 .