ARUN DUGGAL Vs. AJAY PRATAP SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed with the following prayers: -

(2.) The facts giving rise to file this application in a nut -shell are that non -applicant/defendant No.2 Uday Pratap Singh in the written statement filed to the original plaint has admitted the claim of the applicant -plaintiff in toto. No doubt, at a later stage, he filed an application OMP No.4008 of 2013 with a prayer to withdraw the written statement, he already filed. The application was, however, dismissed vide order dated 24.3.2014. During the pendency of the suit in this Court defendants No.3 and 4 have filed suit for seeking declaration that they have become owners of the suit land by virtue of the Will executed in their favour by their predecessor -in -interest Shri Raja Ram Pratap Singh. Non -applicants/respondents No.1 and 2 were defendants in that suit.

(3.) The complaint is that non -applicants/ defendants No.3 and 4 obtained the decree in that suit in collusion with defendants No.1 and 2. Anyhow, the plaintiffs in that suit had filed application OMP No.4009 of 2013 for their impleadment as party in the present suit. The application filed by them has already been allowed vide order dated 24.3.2014 and they are now defendants No.3 and 4 on the record of the present suit. In view of the addition of defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit, the application for amendment of the plaint, OMP No.227 of 2014 came to be filed. The said application has also been allowed vide order dated 9.7.2014 and the amended plaint taken on record. Now non -applicant/defendant No.2 has filed written statement to the amended plaint. He has not only replied the pleadings incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment, but also recasted the original written statement. The complaint, therefore, is that non - applicant/defendant No.1 is not entitled to recast the written statement he already filed and at the most he is entitled to reply the amended pleadings in the plaint.