KRISHNA DEVI Vs. BHIKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will also dispose of Civil Revision Petition No. 738 of 1988, as the question involved is common in both the cases.

(2.) The plaintiff-pre-emptor filed the suit on May 18, 1982. The written statement was filed on September 9, 1982. The vendees moved an application for amendment of the written statement which was allowed by the trial Court on October 19, 1984. However, he challenged the said order in Civil Revision Petition No. 375 of 1985 which was allowed on April 17, 1985. The defendant was allowed to file the amended written statement on payment of Rs. 200/- as costs. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings in the suit since the vendees had approached it by way of writ petition challenging the vires of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, (hereinafter called the Act). The said writ petition amongst others was decided on February 27, 1986. Inspite of the order of this Court allowing the amendment of the written statement on payment of Rs. 200/- as costs, the defendant did not file the amended written statement, nor paid the costs. He moved the second application on February 4, 1988, for seeking amendment written statement alleging that after the said order of this Court, a notification, dated October 15, 1985 under Section 8(2) of this Act, had been issued by the State Government whereby the land situated within the municipal limits was exempted from the operation of the Act and, therefore, he may be allowed to amend the written statement to take the said plea which had been made available to her during the pendency of the suit and after the said order of the High Court. The plaintiff resisted the said application. The trial Court dismissed the same with the observation, -

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even if she was not entitled to seek amendment after the High Court order dated April 17, 1985, she was certainly entitled to seek amendment in view of the notification dated 15.10.1985 which had come in to existence after the said order. According to the learned counsel, even if her application was belated, she could be burdened with heavy costs but the amendment should have been allowed because a valuable right had accrued to the vendee during the pendency of the suit. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Ram Charan v. Shanti Sarup,1972 PunLJ 302 and Than Singh v. Nandu, 1978 CurLJ 25.