PUSHPA SAINI Vs. CHANDA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 18.8.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nahan, District Sirmaur, whereby an application filed by the petitioners-JDs (herein after referred to as "the JDs") under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking therein leave to amend the objections, came to be dismissed, JDs have approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside aforesaid impugned order dated 18.8.2017 and to allow the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) Briefly, stated facts as emerge from the record are that in an execution petition bearing No. 2/10 of 2014 having been filed by the respondent-DH (in short "the DH"), an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, came to be filed on behalf of the JDs, seeking therein permission to amend the objections filed by them. JDs by way of application as referred herein above claimed that they being LRs of deceased Lajja Ram (original JD) were not aware of earlier litigation pending interse parties, factum whereof came to their knowledge after the death of their predecessor-in-interest Shri Lajja Ram. JDs further averred in the application that they after having acquired knowledge with regard to the pendency of litigation inter-se their predecessor-in-interest and DH, approached the DH for amicable settlement of the dispute. JDs further claimed that they with the intervention of the respectable members of the society settled the issue amicably with DH on 10.1.2016, but such fact with regard to compromise could not be pleaded by them in the objections filed to the execution petition on behalf of the DH. JDs further stated in the application that in terms of amicable settlement inter-se parties, sum of Rs. 1 lac was given to the DH for use of the path, who despite having received aforesaid amount, has filed execution of judgment and decree dated 28.11.1994 passed by the court below.

(3.) The aforesaid claim put forth by the JD in the application filed under Section 6 Rule 17 CPC came to be resisted on behalf of DH, who specifically denied factum, if any, with regard to the amicable settlement inter-se parties as well as receipt of Rs. 1 lac for the use of path. The DH claimed that she has already filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,47,500/- against JDs. DH has further stated that JDs have concocted a new story with a view to grab the suit property and to overcome the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in favour of the Decree Holder, which otherwise has attained finality.