BALWANT SINGH Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenges the order dated 16.3.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Panipat dismissing the application of the defendant -petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the Code seeking amendment of his written statement. The application under order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the Code has been filed at the stage when the appeal of the defendant -petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1997 is pending before the Additional District Judge, Panipat.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary to decide the controversy raised in this revision petition are that the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit against the defendant -petitioner for possession of the disputed plot asserting that defendant -respondents No. 2 to 5 and their mother Smt: Chalti Devi were owners in possession of total land fully described in the head -note of the plaint. It was further alleged that in the family settlement which took place between the parties two years before the filing of the suit, to which plaintiff -respondent and defendant -respondents No. 2 to 5 and Smt. Chalti Devi were parties, the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff -respondent. Thereafter Smt. Chalti Devi died leaving behind the plaintiff -respondent as well as defendant -respondents No. 2 to 5. The defendant -petitioner got the suit land from the plaintiff -respondent for a period of six years as licensee for his residence and agreed to vacate the same after expiry of six years. The defendant -petitioner thereafter raised construction and has been residing with his family members in that house. In May, 1992 when the period of lease of 6 years had expired, plaintiff -respondent requested the defendant -petitioner to remove the construction and hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff -respondent. However, the defendant -petitioner refused to do so resulting into filing of the suit.

(3.) Defendant -petitioner did not deny the fact that the land was owned by defendant -respondents No. 2 to 5 and their mother Smt. Chalti Devi. He also did not controvert the family settlement between all of them, yet he asserted that he had purchased the suit land from the plaintiff -respondent in the year 1995 and it was never taken on lease. The Trial Court after framing various issues and recording detailed evidence decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff -respondent directing defendant -petitioner to remove the construction from the plot in dispute within 60 days from the date of passing the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1997 and hand over its vacant possession to the plaintiff -respondent. Against the judgment and decree dated 4.2.1997, the appeal filed by the defendant -petitioner is pending before the Additional District Judge, Panipat. It is during the pendency of the appeal that an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the Code seeking amending of the written statement filed in the Civil Suit No. 138/1 decided on 4.2.1997 was filed.