DROPTI Vs. SOHNU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, lays challenge to order dated 27.6.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Civil Misc. Application No. 125-6 of 2019 in Civil Suit No. 159-1 of 13, whereby an application under Order VI, rule 17 CPC, having been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter, 'plaintiff') came to be dismissed, with a prayer to set aside the impugned order consequently allowing the application under Order VI, rule 17 CPC.

(2.) Case was listed on 14.10.2019, but since none came present on behalf of the private respondents No.1 to 4-defendants (hereinafter, 'defendants'), this Court adjourned the matter for today. Even today, despite repeated pass-overs, none has come present on behalf of the defendants No.1 to 4, as such, they are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. It appears that the defendants No.1 to 4 are not interested in contesting the present petition.

(3.) For having a bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the he is owner-in-possession of the land denoted by Khata/Khatauni No. 81 min/96 min, Khasra No. 405/374/147, situate in Village Bhajwani, Tehsil Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter, 'suit land') and order dated 21.4.2019 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur and mutation dated 15.6.2009 sanctioned by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh are wrong, illegal, and void. Record reveals that after closure of plaintiff's evidence, he filed an application under Order VI, rule 17 CPC(Annexure P-5), seeking amendment of plaint. Plaintiff averred in the application that due to inadvertence and clerical mistake, word "plaintiff" has been wrongly mentioned in place of "defendant" in para-13 of the plaint, as such, he be permitted to replace the word "plaintiff" by word "defendant" in para-13 of the plaint. Besides this, plaintiff also sought amendment by inserting lines i.e. "Late sh. Sohnu ram S/o Sh. Jiunu Ram predecessor in the interest of the defendant no. 1(i) to (iv) was dismissed. In that suit the Ld. Civil Judge Ghumarwin had discussed about the document Sajra Kishtbar in the order and judgment dated 22-04- 2004 in the above mentioned case no. 94/1 of 1999 and the said Sajra Kishtbar was Exhibited in that case as Ex. DW-2/A. Thereafter the above mentioned matter was also dismissed by the first appellant court" after the words, "suit of" in second line of para-13, which now learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press.