HANS RAJ Vs. SAVITRI DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dated 16th September, 1985, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint has been allowed in appeal.

(2.) THE Plaintiffs -Respondents Savitri Devi and another, filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining the Defendant -Appellant Hans Raj from taking possession of the premises, in dispute, in execution of the ejectment order dated 2nd September, 1977. The suit was filed on 7th December, 1977. It remained pending in the trial court for about six years It was ultimately dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27th May, 1983. Appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial court was filed. However, during the pendency of the appeal, application dated 3rd September, 1985, was moved under Order VI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint. It was pleaded therein that the Plaintiff -Appellant be allowed to take the plea of adverse possession as the same could not be taken earlier. According to her, no evidence was required to be led by her as the evidence in this behalf was already on the record. The said application was contested on behalf of the Defendant inter alia on the ground that it was mala fide as the same was filed to delay the ejectment proceedings. Moreover, it had nowhere been stated in the application that why the said plea could not be taken earlier. Even the amendment sought for was not necessary for the determination of the real controversy between the parties. The learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order came to the conclusion that the amendments should be allowed liberally. Besides, in this case, the amendment would not change the nature of the suit. Therefore, he allowed the application vide impugned order. Dissatisfied with the same, the Defendant has filed this revision petition in this Court.

(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Additional District Judge is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. The parties have been directed to appear before him on 23rd April, 1986