VIJAY KUMAR @ VIJAY SINGH Vs. DARIYA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges order dated 19.5.2003 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Loharu allowing the application of the plaintiff-respondent filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') seeking amendment of the plaint. By way of amendment the plaintiff respondent has sought to incorporate the challenge to the adoption deed dated 1.6.1985 executed by one Puran adopting defendant- petitioner. The principal ground for allowing the amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is that the adoption deed has been pleaded in the written statement and was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent earlier.

(2.) BRIEF facts which have led to the filing of the instant petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property which originally belonged to one Puran son of Jai Krishan being the son of pre-deceased brother of Puran. The judgment and decree dated 30.8.1991 rendered in Civil Suit No. 596 of 1991 titled Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Singh v. Puran has also been challenged. The defendant-petitioner filed written statement on 5.9.2001 pleadings that he was adopted son of Puran vide registered adoption deed dated 1.6.1985 and the decree dated 30.8.1991. In consequence of the adoption deed and a decree a mutation has been entered on 8.1.1992 in favour of the defendant-petitioner. On 6.4.2002, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating the challenge to the adoption deed dated 1.6.1985. The trial Court allowed the application and the operative part of the order reads as under :

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has pointed out that application was filed by him on 6.4.2002 and the same has been decided by impugned order. According to the learned counsel, there is no delay because the adoption deed dated 1.6.1985 came to the knowledge of the plaintiff- respondent only on the filing of the written statement on 5.9.2001. Learned counsel has further contended that the amendment sought by the plaintiff- respondent as alleged by the Civil Judge is within the four corners of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code and, therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for.