AJIT SINGH Vs. SULAKHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 5.6.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Gurdaspur vide which the application filed by the respondent for the amendment in written statement has been allowed.

(2.) THE facts as pleaded in the plaint are that petitioner Ajit Singh has filed a suit for possession of the land measuring 11 kanals 2 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Saraspur against the defendant Sulakhan Singh. The plea of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the land has been allotted to him alongwith other land in the partition proceeding vide the order of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurdaspur and petitioner has been delivered symbolic possession of the land allotted to him in partition. The respondent who is son of the petitioner has been cultivating the suit land only in the capacity of the licencee. When the petitioner went to take actual delivery of possession of the suit land through Girdawar Halqa, the respondent obstructed the delivery of possession and refused to hand over the possession of the suit land and a suit for possession of land has been filed. The respondent has sought the amendment by pleading in the written statement that he is in possession of the suit land as a tenant since 1984 and the Khasra Girdwaries from Sauni 1985 onwards are in his favour and he is shown as Gair Dakhilkar. He has also pleaded that he has obtained temporary injunction against the petitioner and is in legal possession of the suit land as a tenant which is well within the knowledge of the petitioner.

(3.) ON notice, petitioner contested the application and pleaded that the joint land has been partitioned amongst the cosharers i.e. Pritam Singh, Bhagat Singh and Ajit Singh vide order passed by Assistant Collector Ist Grade. The suit land has been fallen to the share of the petitioner as per order of partition and respondent is occupying it as a licencee. Whereas as per case pleaded by the respondent in the written statement is that he is occupying the suit land as a tenant and this plea has been reiterated by the respondent twice in the written statement filed by him. The petitioner has been cross- examined by the respondent on the ground of tenancy. It is denied that the word tenant has been mentioned in the written statement inadvertently but it has been mentioned intentionally. It was further pleaded that the proposed amendment amounts to alteration or substitution of a new cause of action on the basis of which original defence was taken. The proposed amendment shall cause prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. The case is fixed for arguments and the amendment to the written statement would tantamount to de novo trial.