LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-273

MAJIDAN Vs. MOHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS

Decided On November 04, 2014
MAJIDAN Appellant
V/S
MOHAMMAD SADIQ AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 21.07.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Malerkotla whereby, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is that the case is at rebuttal and arguments stage and the evidence of both the parties had been closed. The name of the defendants and declaration that the gift deed dated 24.06.1969 which was the amendment sought was not done when the written statement was filed and specific reference was made to the above said gift deed and even in the replication, the gift deed was denied by the plaintiff. The Trial Court also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Ajmer Singh vs. Girdhala and others, 2014 3 CivCC 56 and Sunil and others vs. Jai Parkash and another, 2013 2 CivCC 105while dismissing the application.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for joint possession alleging 1/2 share out of land measuring 18 Bighas 18 Biswas situated at village Jamalpura, Malerkotla and for prohibitory injunction. The claim was based upon the fact that the father of the plaintiff namely Umra @ Umar was owner to the extent of 1/2 share of the said land. The defendants are allegedly step siblings and the legal representatives having been born from the loins of Smt. Hassi, who was earlier married to one Faridu.

(3.) In the written statement which is dated 03.03.2011, the plea of limitation was taken and it had been submitted that Umra, father of the plaintiff had given the land in dispute vide registered gift deed dated 24.06.1969 and even mutation No. 831 dated 26.11.1969 was also sanctioned in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2 and deceased-defendant no. 3. The said fact was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff from the beginning and the defendants were in continuous and joint possession openly without any interruption and hurdle since then.