JAGDISH CHAND SHARMA Vs. NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is maintained by the petitioner, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing and setting the impugned order, dated 23.5.2017, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.IV, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P, in CMA No.368 of 2016, in Civil Suit No.39 of 2013 titled Nand Lal vs. Jagdish Chand Sharma, whereby the learned Court below, has dismissed the application of the petitioner/defendant filed, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') maintained a suit for Specific Relief Act and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendant') from interfering and raising any type of construction in the suit land and changing the nature of same comprised in Khata No.182, Khatauni No.202, Khasra No.560, area 9 marlas, situated in Tika Lag, Tappa Mewa, Tehsil Bhoranj, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'suit land') and in case, the defendant succeeds in raising forcible construction over the suit land, then suit for possession by way of demolition of such construction. During the pendency of suit, petitioner/defendant moved an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement, but the learned Court below dismissed the said application, vide order, dated 23.5.2017. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) Reply to the petition has been filed and it has been averred that initially, the case was maintained before the learned Court below on 8.2013, written statement was filed by the defendant on 15.2013 claiming himself to be owner of the suit land, which adjoins the suit land. Issues were framed on 6.11.2013 and the parties led their respective evidence and thereafter, the case was fixed for arguments, but on the said date, application for amendment of written statement was filed. By way of amendment, the very nature of defence, as was taken in the written statement by the defendant claiming himself to be owner of the suit land. So, the present petition has been filed just to delay the matter and thus, is liable to be dismissed.