SHANTI BAI Vs. SURESH CHANDRA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.04.2013 passed by the learned District Judge, Pratapgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the learned trial court has allowed the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiffs have preferred a suit for cancellation of sale deed dated 29.05.2004, executed by the respondent-defendant - Vardi Chand in favour of the petitioner in respect of agriculture land situated at village Malavda, Tehsil Chhoti Sadri. The respondent-plaintiffs moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint, while alleging that during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner had sold the agriculture land to some persons by registered sale-deed dated 06.06.2012 and, therefore, they want to bring this fact in the pleading and also want to amend the reliefs in the plaint. The said application preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs was opposed by the petitioner by filing a reply to the said application, however, the learned trial court, after hearing of the parties, has allowed the said application by the order impugned, which is under challenge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial court has grossly erred in allowing the application of the plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as the sale of the agriculture land by the petitioner in favour of other persons cannot be said to be illegal in any manner and by allowing the amendment in the plaint, the rights of those persons, who have purchased the land from her will be affected and, therefore, no such amendment should be allowed without impleading those persons as defendants in the suit. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial court, without appreciating the said arguments of the petitioner, has allowed the application of the respondent-plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order dated 05.05.2013 and has also prayed that the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint may be ordered to be dismissed.