KANTA DEVI AND ORS. Vs. HARGIAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since 16.12.2009, a suit for seeking declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction filed by Smt. Kanta Devi and two of her daughters, petitioners herein, is pending adjudication before the lower court which is at the final stage of conclusion. An application was moved by the petitioner -plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as also under Order I Rule 10 CPC read with Sec. 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint as also impleadment of another party in the suit. Two sale deeds bearing No. 4483 and 4484 of 17.8.2007 are sought to be challenged by way of amendment in the plaint, whereas suit itself had been filed much later, i.e., on 16.12.2009 and the said sale deeds could have very well been challenged in the suit itself. The suit is for seeking declaration. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and they aver that they have share in the land in suit and any alienation made by the defendants are null and void and are not binding against them. The two sale deeds sought to be challenged by way of amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC also pertain to the same land, is not a matter of dispute.

(2.) No notice is being issued to the respondents in order to obviate delay, more so when no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondent in view of the nature of order which this Court proposes to pass.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners, citing Raj Kumar v/s. Kamlesh Kumari, : 2012 (4) Law Herald 2986, has urged that for amendment of the plaint, delay by itself is not a ground for dismissal of the same. Observations of this Court in this judgment appearing in para 10 are noteworthy and are reproduced as below: -