MELO DEVI Vs. VIJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 17.09.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.III, Hamirpur, in so far as by this order the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission to amend the plaint.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit in the trial Court praying that they are exclusive owner in possession of the suit property and that no sale of any joint Khata of the property has taken place in favour of the respondents. It was further alleged in the suit that in case it is found that any such

(3.) Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. sale has taken place then the possession of the plaintiffs is adverse to that of the defendants and therefore they have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. This suit was filed on 8.6.1998. It would be pertinent to mention that in this suit it was averred that the defendants had already started partition proceedings in the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur. This suit was contested, evidence of both the parties was led and when the case was fixed for arguments an application for amendment of the suit was filed. By means of this application the plaintiffs wanted to add Para (4.a.) stating that during pendency of the suit the plaintiffs have come to know that the defendants have initiated proceedings for partition of the suit land before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sujanpur. Further by means of this application a fresh prayer was sought to be incorporated to the effect that the defendants be prohibited from getting the suit land partitioned. This application was filed on 17.5.2007. The learned trial Court rejected this application mainly on the ground that it had been filed at a belated stage and moreover no such order restraining the revenue authorities could be passed in view of the ouster of the bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 171 of the Land Revenue Act. I have heard Shri Ankush Dass Sood, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the respondents.