HARI DASS Vs. KALI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19-5-1978, passed by Shri K. C. Negi, Sub Judge, Theog, dismissing the application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code filed by Hari Dass defendant for amendment of the written statement. By the intended amendment he wanted to incorporate that the land covered by khasra number 669/1, measuring 16 biswas, was not pre-emptible in view of the provisions of Section 5 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act (shortly called the Act) as applicable to Himachal Pradesh. The Sub Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the Act applies to banjar land and it is not applicable to the sale of agricultural land being waste land reclaimed by the vendee under Section 5 (b) of the Act. He further observed that the applicant had not in any way said that the banjar land sold by the vendor was reclaimed by the defendant. The ground on which the amendment was sought was not necessary for the determination of the real question of controversy between the parties and, therefore, he rejected the same with costs,

(2.) The defendant moved this revision petition in this Court. He has contended that the Sub Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by not allowing the application for amendment of the written statement. Further, the court had -not exercised the discretion in a judicial manner. The objections sought to be raised by the defendant in the written statement by way of amendment were purely legal.

(3.) Shri Manohar Lal Sharma, while opposing this revision very strongly contended that there was nothing wrong in the order of the Sub Judge. The petitioner had not disclosed that he had reclaimed the land after he had purchased the same. In so far as the sale of the waste land is concerned the same is pre-emptible, it is only the land which was previously waste and had subsequently been reclaimed which is not preemptible. The defendant had not laid any foundation for the same. Therefore, he contends that the order passed by the Sub Judge was correct.