(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgement, decree dated 3.12.1999 passed by learned Additional District Judge (I), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 37 -D/97 affirming the judgement, decree dated 20.5.1997 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Dharamshala in Civil Suit No. 198 of 1990.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that respondent had filed a suit for possession of land comprised in khasra No. 88/2/2/1/1, measuring 0 -00 -15 hectares, situated in Mohal Mant Khas, Tehsil Dharamshala, claiming herself to be the owner and alleging that appellant had occupied the suit land to the extent of 15 square meters. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? according to the report of Kanungo dated 18.7.1990, which was confirmed on 26.7.1990 by Naib Tehsildar (Settlement), Dharamshala.
(3.) HEARD and perused the record. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had filed an application on 21.9.1998 for amendment of the written statement in the lower appellate court. The learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgement and thereafter decided the application under Order 6 rule 17 CPC of the appellant and dismissed the same primarily on the ground that since the main appeal has been dismissed, therefore, the application for amendment of the written statement has become infructuous. The other reasons given for dismissal of the application are also not correct. It has been submitted that the learned Additional District Judge should have decided the application for amendment of the written statement earlier to the decision of the appeal or at -least with the main appeal. The Additional District Judge had left no jurisdiction to decide the amendment application once he decided the main appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgement and order dated 3.12.1999 of learned Additional District Judge dismissing the amendment application.