BIHARI LAL SON OF KANHU Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision Petition, under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been maintained by the petitioner-defendant No.1 against the impugned order dtd. 6/2/2019, passed by the learned Trial Court, in RBT No.755/14/10, whereby an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed and with a prayer to set aside the impugned order.

(2.) The key facts giving rise to the present petition are that plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 herein maintained a suit for possession against the petitioner-defendant No.1. When the matter was listed for final arguments, it noticed that there are clerical and typographical mistakes in para-5 of the written statement claiming adverse possession, even otherwise also, defendant No.1 never intended to claim adverse possession, as even in para-1 of the written statement, defendant No.1 clearly stated that Shri Bansi Lal son of Shri Mohan, was in possession of the suit land and he became owner by way of adverse possession. Defendant No.1 cannot claim adverse possession and words, as have come in para-5, with respect to claiming adverse possession by him, sought to be amended. Similarly, in para-5, in fourth line of the written statement, words "the defendants" were sought to be replaced with words "Shri Khushia".

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the impugned order, dtd. 6/2/2019, passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner maintained the present revision petition.