CHANDER SINGH Vs. SHAKUNTLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated January 7, 1989, whereby the application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. It was the second application filed by the defendants seeking amendment in the written statement. By virtue of this application, the defendants wanted to plead that they have installed a tube well on the land in dispute in the month of October 1986 by digging a well and fixed a diesel engine and long pipes and thus, have spent a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Since all this was done to the knowledge of the plaintiffs they were liable to pay the costs of such improvements in case their suit is decreed. This application was contested on behalf on the plaintiffs, inter alia, on the ground that they have mala fide intention to delay the proceedings in the suit as to enable them to finalise the petition proceedings taken by them before the revenue officer. The learned trial Court after discussing the matter in great detail came to the conclusion that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the opinion that the application for amending the written statement is not bona fide as they wanted to prolong the disposal of the suit, that is whey they are making one after the other applications with mala fide intention to delay the disposal of the present suit. According to the petitioners, that the application was filed after a great delay was no reason to dismiss the same. According to the learned counsel, the amendment sought was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any merit in this petition. The defendants also moved an application earlier for amendment of the written statement, but no such plea was taken which was very much available to them at that time. It is wrong notion to say that the party is not to explain the delay satisfactorily in order to amend the written statement. As a matter of fact, it is for the trial Court to see as to whether the amendment sought for is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties or not ? If that is not so, then the application is liable to be rejected. In the present case, the trial Court has categorically found that the amendment now sought for is not at all necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties. Rather it has been held that it is an effort to delay the proceedings by the defendants for one reason or the other.

(3.) In the circumstances, I do not find any justification for interference in the impugned order in revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.