SHISH RAM AND ORS. Vs. LAXMNI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dismissal of application i of the applicant-plaintiffs/petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as also under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC vide order of 30.9.2014 of the lower court, forms genesis of this revision petition. The applicant-plaintiff/petitioners had sought impleadment of defendant No. 9 as a contesting party and consequently also wanted to change the relevant clause commensurately. Perusal of the paper book reveals that the applicant-plaintiffs/petitioners had filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs and proforma defendants had become owners of the suit land and thus names of defendants No. 1 to 3 were liable to be removed from the revenue record. Shelter was taken under the provisions of the Vesting of Proprietary Rights Act, 1953 to claim occupancy tenancy rights.

(2.) During the course of trial, out of proforma defendants No. 4 to 9, defendant No. 9 diverting from the line of action of the plaintiffs, filed a written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs which tremorized the plaintiffs forcing them to make an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC as also under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC for changing status of defendant No. 9 from the proforma defendant to a contesting defendant.

(3.) Now the question posing for answer is as to whether amendment in the pleadings sought by the applicants-plaintiffs/petitioners is necessary? In other words, is the amendment sought for by the applicant-plaintiff/petitioners, if not allowed, would result in non-adjudication of the matter in controversy between the parties?