RAJ KUMAR Vs. KATU RAM ALIAS CHHOTU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KATU Ram alias Chhotu Ram, respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption of land as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint on the ground that he was a co-sharer. The suit was resisted by the defendant-petitioner. No plea of partition was taken in the written statement though admittedly during the pendency of the suit revenue authorities have ordered partition of the joint khewat. During the evidence this fact came to the notice of the plaintiff. It was at that stage, plaintiff moved an application seeking permission to amend the plaint to challenge the partition proceedings. The application was opposed by the defendant-vendee. The trial Court by its order dated May 21, 1993 allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint. Defendant of course, was permitted to file written statement to the amended plaint with liberty to raise all pleas that may be available to him. This is how the defendant-vendee has filed this revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the order of partition to which the plaintiff was a party, could not be challenged before the civil court and in fact the jurisdiction of the civil court was specifically barred in view of the provisions of Sections 158 (1) and 158 (2) (xvii and xvii) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short 'the Act' ). In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon Shri Ominder Hari Darshan Singh v. The Punjab State and Ors. , 1982 P. L. J. 272. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the case in hand is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Risal Singh of Karnal v. Lal Singh and Anr. , 1992 H. R. R. 538. Learned counsel for the parties have also taken me through the application seeking amendment of the plaint and the reply filed thereto.

(3.) FOR what has been noticed above, the revision is allowed, order under revision is set aside and the application seeking amendment of the plaint is dismissed. The parties through their counsel have been directed to appear in the trial court on 20. 12. 94 for further proceedings. No costs.