PRAN NATH Vs. VED PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE factual background of this two decades old litigation forming the back drop of these two revision petitions may be borrowed from the judgment passed in connected revision petition being no. 99/2005 and captioned as "Ved Pal v. Pran Nath" which runs as follows:

(2.) WITH that background when Nazool Department projected its claim of ownership over the land underneath suit property, the petitioners herein filed an application on 18th March 2006 for amendment of their written statement on the ground that with claim of Nazool Department and the cancellation of mutations favouring respondents the texture of the question title pertaining to suit property had considerably changed, in view whereof they wanted to set up the plea of paramount ownership of Nazool Department and the fact of their having atoned to them along with a rebuttal of respondents plea of proprietorship over the subject matter. They also sought permission to plead that with receipt of notice of eviction by Nazool Department they have submitted themselves to said department as paramount owner and requested them for allotment and transfer of the land in their favour. The petition was contested by present respondent on the ground that after having admitted their title in the original written statement they could not set up a contradictory claim to question their ownership at the fag end of the case when the trial was almost complete and posted for being heard by trial court. After hearing parties the learned trial Judge did not find favour with petitioners request of amendment and dismissed the application vide order dated 2nd May, 2006. It is this order that is assailed in this revision petitions.

(3.) GROUNDS pleaded are that after having been served with eviction notice by Nazool Department as paramount owner the petitioners herein submitted to them and sought grant of lease property in their favour which had necessitated in -corporating that plea in the written statement along with the fact of Nazool Department having staked their claim for ownership of the land underneath and appurtenant to the suit property; and as such by refusing to allow petitioners plea for amendment of the written statement the trial court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, while ignoring the fact that the same was necessitated by subsequent development as cataloged above. During course of submissions the petitioners counsel, while reiterating the contents of revision petition has also contended that as per well settled law, the petitioners could have amended their written statement at any stage of the case particularly in view of the changed factual scenario attending the controversy, the respondents counsel has contended that the application for amendment of written statement was filed by petitioners only to further prolong the lung pending litigation between the parties which would not be permissible at the fag -end of the case, particularly because through proposed amendment the petitioners wanted to undo their admission regarding the proprietorship over the suit property etc.