LAKHWINDER SINGH Vs. BALVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order, under challenge, application of the petitioner, under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was dismissed. It is apparent from the records that the suit was filed in the year 1997. Written statement was filed on 26.2.1998. Thereafter, issues were framed and the suit was dismissed in default on 6.12.1999 and thereafter, it was restored on 21.10.2005. When written statement was filed in the year 1998, it was specifically averred by the respondents that they have exchanged the land, in dispute, further with Balbir Singh. Despite that no effort was made by the petitioner to implead said Balbir Singh as party in the pending suit, though ample opportunity was available to him and also no challenge was laid to the exchange deed, allegedly executed by the respondents. When this suit, against other respondents, was dismissed in default, he could have filed a separate suit against Balbir Singh laying challenge to the exchange deed, but that was not done, under these circumstances, this Court feels that the trial Court was justified to say that now, when his claim has become time barred, amendment cannot be allowed. In view of facts of this case, judgment of Honble Supreme Court cited by counsel for the petitioner in Pankaja and anr. V. Yellapa (D) by LRs. & ors., 2004(3) RCR(Civil) 723, is not applicable.