MADAN MOHAN AHUJA Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's second appeal, whose plaint was rejected by the trial Court as he had failed to comply with the order dated 7.8.1980 for not filing the amended plaint, which order was maintained in appeal.

(2.) Plaintiff Madan Mohan Ahuja filed a suit for possession by partition of 1/11 share in the land measuring 143 kanals 11 marlas situated at village Karni Khera; three vacant plots situated in the abadi of village Sekhu, tehsil Muktsar; on double-storeyed building situated at Malout Mandi; and land measuring 258 kanals 5 marlas etc. The suit was originally filed on 18.4.1972. On the pleadings of the parties, certain preliminary issues were framed. The said issues related to the question of limitation and whether the actual partition by meats and bounds could be effected of the agricultural land by the Civil Court. However, some of the said preliminary issues were decided against the plaintiff and vide order dated 7.8.1980 it was directed that the plaintiff shall file the amended plaint by 23.8.1980, failing which the plaint shall stand rejected. Against the said order of the trial Court Civil Revision No. 1887 of 1980 was filed in this Court which was decided on 7.4.1981. This issue of court-fee was decided in favour of the plaintiff by the High Court for proceeding further. On 24.8.1981 when the case was fixed for the evidence on the plaintiff, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants that since the plaintiff had not complied with the order dated 7.8.1980 and had failed to file the amended plaint the same should be rejected. This found favour with the trial Court and ultimately vide order dated 6.3.1982 the trial Court rejected the plaint. It was observed therein :-

(3.) When the appeal was filed, it was stated at the Bar that the amended plaint was also sought to be filed along with but the same was not allowed. However, there is nothing on the record to show that. However, the observation made by the learned lower appellate Court, that "no steps were taken to amend the plaint until 6.3.1982 when the order under appeal was passed" shows that the copy of the amended plaint was filed before the lower Court but the same was not placed on the record. In appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court and thus maintained the order rejecting the plaint.