KUMARI KUMUD JAIN Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 20.08.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hansi, whereby, the application filed by the respondent under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. A further prayer has also been made for stay of operation of impugned order dated 20.08.2014 during pendency of this revision petition.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present revision petition are that the petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside judgment and decree dated 13.11.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hansi in Civil Suit No.137-C of 2010 and ex-parte order dated 30.07.2010. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18.08.2005 regarding 1/4th share of the land measuring 8 kanals in Khasra No.163/4/2/2 (2-4), 4/2/1 min south (5-16) situated at Narnaund, District Hisar. The said suit was decided vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.2010. Thereafter, an application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the respondent for amendment of reply dated 25.07.2011 on the ground that instead of word correct with regard to receiving of an amount of Rs.11,50,000.00 on 22.10.2009 and receiving of Rs.5,75,000.00 on 22.04.2009, the word incorrect was mentioned and the same be replaced as it was wrongly typed. Reply to the application was filed by the respondent on 25.07.2011, He has sought the said amendment after passing of more than 2 years. Said application was allowed vide order dated 20.08.2014, which has been challenged in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was moved by the respondent after a period of more than 2 years from the date of filing the reply in the case. The amendment would have serious affects on the rights of the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the purpose for filing application for amendment is to delay the proceedings of the suit and to deprive the rights of the petitioner. At the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna of the case and as such, the application has wrongly been allowed without considering the facts as mentioned above.