URMILA DEVI Vs. NAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 9.10.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh declining the application of the defendant-petitioner in which prayer was made for amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code'). It is appropriate to mention that the defendant-petitioner has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.8.2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Union Territory, Chandigarh in Civil Suit No. 26 of 1987 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondents has been decreed against the defendant- appellant. During the pendency of the appeal, prayer for amendment of the written statement has been made. The following amendments have been sought : (a) that the non-joinder of Thakurdwara by the plaintiff-respondents is fatal to the suit of the plaintiff-respondents as it was a necessary party. The aforementioned ground was sought to be set up on the plea that Thakurdwara to whom the suit property was gifted by the ancestors of the plaintiff- respondents in 19th Century and the land revenue was remitted; (b) that the property being maintained by Mahants of Bairagi Ramandi Sect and presently Mahant Sukhdass Chela Mahant Raghubir Dass Chela Mahant Laxmi Dass Mahant Chela Harnam Dass is the present Mahant and Urmila Devi is managing the suit property as member of the family of Mahants.

(2.) THE learned Additional District Judge considering the rival contentions has dismissed the application by recording the impugned order, the operative part of which reads as under :-

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel at a considerable length, I am not able to persuade myself to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel because the suit was filed in the year 1987 and after more than 14 years the judgment and decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge on 16.8.2001. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred being C.A. No. 45 on 26.9.2001. During this period, no objection with regard to requirement of impleadment of necessary party was taken nor any application was filed. However, for the first time an application was filed on 27.1.2004 when the case was posted for arguments before the learned Additional District Judge. Such a conduct does not augur well the judicial system especially when the rights of the plaintiff- respondents have crystalised. I am in agreement with the observations made by the learned Additional District Judge that the prayer made by the defendant- petitioner lacks bona fide and is a device to delay the decision of the appeal. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.