KISHORI LAL Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, by means of this petition, challenged the order dated 17.8.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)-I, Dharamshala, whereby the Plaintiff has been permitted to amend the suit.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Plaintiff') filed a suit against the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Defendant No. 1') and the proforma Defendants under Sections 34 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act. It was prayed that Plaintiff Krishan Lal and Defendant are Gaddis by caste and governed by customary law. According to the Plaintiff, he and the Defendant had inherited the suit land from their mother, Smt. Nihato Devi, being her legal heirs. The Defendant No. 1 produced some forged will before the revenue staff and got a mutation attested in his favour. According to the Plaintiff, he was in government service and retired in the year 2003 in the main suit, it was prayed that the suit land is jointly owned by both the parties and that Smt. Nihato Devi had never executed any will in favour of the Defendant. This suit was filed in the year 2005. The Defendant contested the suit and submitted that a registered will had been executed by Smt. Nihato Devi in his favour as far back as 08.01.1981 and that he inherited the property of Nihato Devi in terms of the said will. Thereafter, replication was filed by the, Plaintiff, in which again it was re-asserted that Nihato Devi had never executed any will in favour of the Defendant. It would be pertinent to mention that the replication is very detailed. The case was listed for evidence of Plaintiff on a number of occasions and on 12.11.2008, last opportunity was granted to the Plaintiff to produce his evidence on 7th January, 2009. On 7th January, 2009, no witness was present, but an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure was filed and this application was allowed vide order dated 17.6.2009.

(3.) Normally, this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, would not interfere in an order allowing amendment, but in the present case, I am constrained to observe that by way of amendment the entire nature of the suit is being changed. In fact, by way of this amendment, the Plaintiff wants to re-write the whoie plaint. As far as certain amendments are concerned, they relate to the fact that the Plaintiff had inherited the property from Nihato Devi by way of natural succession alongwith Defendant No. 1 and proforma Defendants No. 2 to 12. Some amendments relate to the description of the land and correction of the areas mentioned in the plaint. As far as these amendments are concerned, there could be no quarrel with the order of the learned trial Court and the same can be allowed.