BHARTI SHARMA Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In instant petition, petitioners have assailed part of impugned order dated 22.5.2019 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge Court No. 1, Amb in an application filed on behalf of plaintiffs/petitioners, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") for amendment of plaint, whereby application has been allowed partly, by permitting the amendment by allowing plaintiffs to plead that suit property is Joint Hindu family coparcenary ancestral property under Mitakshra Hindu Law, but rejecting second proposed amendment to add another property situated at Yamunanagar, Haryana in the suit property in present suit, on the ground of resjudicata with observation that suit property situated in Haryana was subject matter of the suit which was Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes filed in a competent Court in Haryana, but was got dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally on 11.7.2016 by plaintiffs on the alleged objection of defendants.

(2.) Plaintiffs, being aggrieved by rejection of proposed amendment, disallowing addition of property of Yamunanagar in the suit property, has assailed this part of the impugned order, passed by trial Court, on the ground that suit with subject matter of property at Yamunanagar in Haryana, was withdrawn with specific statement that suit property of that suit shall be added in suit property of present suit pending at Amb.

(3.) The conclusion, that suit filed at Yamunanagar was withdrawn unconditionally, has been drawn by the trial Court on the basis of order dated 11.7.2016 announced in Daily Lok Adalat by Additional Civil Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri, which reads as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_13_LAWS(HPH)4_2021_1.html</FRM>