SANTOKH SINGH Vs. HARCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has challenged order dated 12.4.1994 passed by Sub Judge IInd Class, Hoshiarpur in this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity "the Code"). The trial Court vide impugned order has allowed an application filed by the defendant- respondents under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code in which prayer for amendment of the written statement was made.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession of 17 kanals 13-1/2 marlas of agricultural land and 2-1/2 marla of abadi land, which is fully detailed in sub-paras (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the heading of the plaint. He has impleaded Harcharan Singh son of Gurbachan Singh as defendant No. 1, Kishan Singh - his own father as defendant No. 2 and Sohan Singh - his paternal uncle as defendant No. 3. He also claimed the relief of permanent injunction so as to restrain defendant-respondent No. 1 from alienating the suit property or from making any construction on the abadi land to which reference has been made in sub-para (iv). In the suit assertion was made that Kishan Singh, father of the plaintiff-petitioner, who has been impleaded as defendant-respondent No. 2 is karta of joint Hindu family and as such had no right to alienate the property in any manner, without the consent of the plaintiff-petitioner who claimed to be a co-parcener and, therefore, alienation made by him in favour of defendant-respondent No. 1 is alleged to be illegal, without consideration, any legal necessity and not an act of good management. Consequently the validity of the sale-deed has also been challenged alleging that the father of the plaintiff-petitioner is addicted to drinks etc. The allegations of fraud have also been levelled against the defendant-respondent No. 1.

(3.) DURING the course of proceedings, defendant-respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code in which prayer for amendment of the written statement has been made. The application was ordered to be placed on record for 29.4.1992. It is further appropriate to mention that the proceeding in the suit continued in the usual manner and the evidence of the parties was recorded. At the stage of arguments, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent No. 1 pressed the application for filing the amended written statement and the prayer made by the learned counsel was opposed. The plaintiff-petitioner was permitted to file reply to the application which has been eventually disposed of by the impugned order.