MAHANT SUKHDEV PURI Vs. SMADH BABA MAUZPURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 28th August, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement was declined.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Smadh Baba Mauzpuri has filed a suit, seeking decree for declaration that he is the Mahant of the Dera Smadh Baba Mauzpuri and also sought consequential relief to the effect that the defendant be restrained from interfering with his possession and from realising the rent from the tenants. According to the plaintiff, the custom prevalent for the appointment of the Mahant is that the proprietary body along with Lambardar and other respectables of the village appoint the Mahant of the Dera. In the written statement the defendant denied the existing of the above said custom and alleged that the Mahantship devolves from Guru to Chela and according to the defendant he was appointed Mahant of this Dera by the Beikh and respectables of Kaithal City and other villages including village Khurana.

(3.) The case was fixed for arguments on 24th August, 1984 and was adjourned for further arguments on 27th August, 1984, when the application for amendment of the written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant. By way of the proposed amendment, the defendant wanted to add that in case the proprietary body of the village is proved to be the appointing authority of the Mahant of Plaintiff No. 1, in that event also the proprietary body is estopped from denying the defendant as Mahant of the Samadh as they never exercised their right of appointing the Mahant since the death of Adiya Pru Rather. This application was resisted on behalf of the plaintiff. The trial Court found that by virtue of the proposed amendment, the defendant wants to take the new plea which will change the original defence taken by the defendant in the written statement, and, therefore, the defendant could not be allowed to take a new plea which altogether changes the original defence. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant has filed this petition in this Court.