RAM SARUP Vs. BHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of Senior Sub-Judge, Sonepat, dated February 23, 1978, allowing the amendment in the written statement.

(2.) In the original written statement, the defendants pleaded that the property in dispute was possessed and owned by them. When all the evidence had been led, they moved an application for amendment of the written statement so as to plead that the land in dispute belonged to Thola Bakshi and the land being a shamlat land is vested in the Gram Panchayat. The amendment sought for was contrary to the plea already taken by the defendants.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plea sought to be introduced was a contradictory plea and the intention of the amendment sought for was to oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to Section 13-B of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, which says that all pending suits wherein a question arises as to whether the property in dispute is shamlat or not shall be transferred to the revenue Court. The intention of the defendants is not only to take a contradictory view but also to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Such an amendment cannot be allowed to be made and the trial Court acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the same.