BIDHIA Vs. GHUNGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.3.1998 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Dehra whereby application of the petitioner -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) The material and relevant facts are that the plaintiff has instituted a suit for declaration that he is in actual and physical possession of the land comprising in khata No. 11 min, khatauni No. 124 (more specifically detailed in the heading of the plaint) as owner to the extent of 5/8th share and is tenant under the respondents -defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) 2 and 3 to the extent of 3/8 share and the entries in the revenue record showing defendant No. 1 in possession of the land are liable to be removed from the records and for permanent injunction restraining respondent No. 1 from interfering in the suit land in any manner. In the alternative relief of possession has also been prayed for.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CP.C. for amendment of the plaint whereby para 3 of the plaint was sought to be amended so as to include the averment that the plaintiff is continuing in actual and physical possession of entire suit land since 1950 when he was inducted as a tenant by the then owner Bhagat Ram, son of Shiv Dayal on payment of rent. The application was opposed for the defendants and the learned trial Judge dismissed the application on the ground that there was absence of cause of action qua the tenancy plea and deficiency has not been made good within a period of three years from the date defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed written statements and that after lapse of nine years the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. cannot be allowed, and accordingly dismissed the applications. Hence the present revision petition by the plaintiffs.