RAJ PATI ALIAS ROSHNI Vs. DHARAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting in part her application for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the daughter of Pirthi who is owner of 102 Kanals 5 Marlas of land. On 5.4.1990, one Dharam Singh obtained a consent decree against Smt. Raj Kali, the alleged wife of Pirthi. It is the said decree which is challenged by the plaintiff in the suit originally filed on 4.1.1992. However, Dharam Singh filed another suit against Smt. Raj Kali and the present plaintiff. In the said suit, defendant No. 2 i.e. present plaintiff was given up and on the basis of admission written statement of defendant No. 1 another decree was passed on 6.1.1992. The plaintiff has filed an application for amendment of the plaint on 10.4.1992 i.e. after the expiry of three months of filing of the suit.

(3.) THE learned trial Court has declined the amendment pertaining to the status of defendant No. 2 on the ground that it amounts to withdrawal of admission and, thus, it cannot be allowed. The learned trial Court has relied upon the decisions, in M/s Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s Ladha Ram and Co., AIR 1977 SC 680, Mrs. Nirmal Sethi and others v. Deep Chand Anand and others, 1992(2) RRR 258 (Delhi) : 1993(1) L.J.R. 164 (Delhi), Mathia v. Prem Lal and others, 1993(1) L.J.R. 608 (H.P.) : 1993(2) RRR 483 (HP) and Jangir Singh v. Mohinder Kaur and others, 1993(3) L.J.R. 776 (Punjab and Haryana) : 1994(1) RRR 326 (P&H).