MAHAVIR LUMBA Vs. USHA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) USHA Rani and others filed a suit for permanent injunction against the State of Punjab and others restraining defendant No. 4, the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, Malerkotla from attaching and putting to auction the house belonging to them as detailed in the head note of the plaint. Trial Court after a protracted trial dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 21st January, 1987.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court filed appeal which was assigned to the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur. Appeal was partly heard when an application came to be filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint. Plaint was sought to be amended and the following lines are proposed to be added in the plaint by way of amendment " That the share of Usha Rani, plaintiff No. 1, in the house is not liable to be put to auction under Hindu Succession Act being a statutory successor, for the recovery of the loan of Babu Ram, deceased and, therefore, it is imrmine from being attached. The plaintiff No. 1 does not fall within the purview of descendants and son. The plaintiffs are not liable to repay the loan, when Babu Ram deceased sold houses during his life time. '

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the amendment sought to be made in the plaint, I am of the opinion that the same was not at all necessary to be incorporated in the plaint, the amendment sought to be made in the plaint is purely legal and such a point could be argued even in the absence of amendment of the plaint. It seems to me that the only intention of the plaintiffs was to delay the disposal of the appeal and nothing else. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order of learned Additional District Judge cannot be sustained. Revision petition is consequently allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Since the proceedings had been stayed, the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur on 17th August, 1998 for further proceedings. Since the appeal is pending before the appellate Court for the last eleven years learned Additional District Judge Sangrur is directed to dispose of the same within three months from the date of receipt by him a copy of this order. No costs.