HUKAM SINGH Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 10.9.2004 vide which the learned trial Court dismissed an application seeking amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The learned trial Court found that the proposed amendment was totally contradictory to the version of the original plaint and if allowed would amount to withdrawal of an admission. The Court further found that the original averments were supported by a detailed site plan and the proposed amendment relied on a totally different contradictory site plan and if allowed would amount to changing documents attached with the plaint. It was further found that the applicant by way of application seeking amendment had not prayed for amendment in the prayer clause which could again create a contradiction. It was on these grounds that the amendment was dis-allowed.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Alok Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Anil Rathee, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, Mr. C.B.Goel, leaned counsel for respondent No. 17 and Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, learned Counsel respondent Nos. 2,5,6,9 to 14 and have perused the paperbook. A perusal of the original plaint which is attached as Annexure P-2 with this petition would show that it is the categoric case of the plaintiffs that in partition proceedings initiated on 4.8.1980 out of 12 Bighas and 18 Biswas of land, 8 Bighas and 3 Biswas towards West was given to the plaintiffs and 4 Bighas 15 Biswas of land towards East was given to defendant No. 1. It is further pleaded that out of the remaining 7 Bighas of undivided land, on the basis of a settlement made in the year 1990, 1/3rd share was given to the plaintiffs towards West adjoining their land. The relevant observations in the plaint are as hereunder: