BRAHMANAND Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 12/1/2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad, vide which the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for amendment of plaint has been allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, the allotment was made in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 on 6/3/2015 and respondent No.1/plaintiff had filed an application on 15/3/2016 before the Sub Registrar and District Collector, Fatehabad, requesting them not to allot and register the plot in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 and thereafter filed suit on 21/3/2016. It is submitted that respondent No.1 had knowledge of the allotment dtd. 6/3/2015 but did not challenge the same at the time of filing the suit and even subsequently when the order dtd. 9/2/2017 was passed dismissing the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and the application for amendment was filed only on 9/1/2018 after much delay, after the evidence of the plaintiff had been closed. It is submitted that the amendment application has been allowed in spite of the fact that there was no due diligence on the part of respondent No.1/plaintiff. It is argued that thus the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be set aside and the application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for amendment deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.1, who is the plaintiff in the case, has submitted that in the present case, respondent No.1/plaintiff was not aware of the allotment in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 as the plaintiff was not a party to the said allotment and the said fact is apparent from the fact that even in the application dtd. 15/3/2016, the plaintiff had requested the competent authority not to allot or register the plot in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 and in case respondent No.1 was aware of the allotment, then, a prayer would have been made by respondent No.1 for cancellation of the said allotment. It is submitted that on the date of filing of the suit, respondent No.1 was not aware about the said allotment and it was only subsequently that he learnt about the same and accordingly moved an application for amendment of the plaint. It is submitted that the said amendment is very necessary for the proper and final adjudication of the case as the allotment pertains to the property which is the subject matter of the suit, regarding which respondent No.1/plaintiff has sought declaration as well as the relief of injunction.