SHRI MUNI LAL Vs. NIKI MANSA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Order 6, R. 17 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (shortly called the Code) has been filed by the appellant for amendment of the written statement.

(2.) One Bhuria had two sons, Mansha Ram and Mohru. The latter had one son Ganeshu and a daughter Smt. Niki, the plaintiff-respondent. The former had one son Mathu. On the death of Ganeshu, his widow succeeded him, who is said to have made a will of her property on 26-9-1965 in favour of Mathu. She died in July, 1966, and the will is stated to have been registered on 21-8-1966. Mutation on the basis of the will in favour of Mathu was attested on 27-6-67. Smt. Niki filed a suit for cancellation of the will on the ground that the will was forged and that she was the only legal heir to succeed to the property of Smt Sewati who was her brother's widow. The suit was dismissed on 22-8-1973. She filed an appeal before the District Judge. During the pendency of the appeal, Mathu died without issues and a wife. The present appellant-petitioner was brought on the record as the legal representative because he was an inter-meddler. The District Judge accepted the appeal of Smt. Niki on 26-2-1976. Muni Lal, therefore, filed the present appeal on 1-4-1976, and, on April 2, 1976 he obtained an order that he shall not be dispossessed from the land. On 5-8-1976 the stay order was confirmed and it was ordered that the case shall be listed for early hearing. Thereafter the appellant filed this C. M. P. No. 1676/1976 on 22-9-1976 for amendment of the written statement, whereby he wanted to insert two pleas in the written statement which are as under:

(3.) This application is opposed by the respondent on the ground that the applicant-legal representative cannot make out a new and a personal case and he has to contest the case only on the basis of the written statement filed by Mathu. The application is based on mala fides. During the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate court, Muni Lal contested the appeal on the same pleadings filed by Mathu without any objection and after the acceptance of the appeal by the learned lower appellate court, Muni Lal while filing the present Regular Second Appeal did not contend for filing the amended written statement. The application has been filed with an ulterior motive to delay the disposal of the appeal,