SUKH LAL Vs. POONAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.09.2007 as passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kushalgarh, District Banswara rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint as moved by the plaintiff-petitioner on 12.09.2007.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for perpetual injunction (C.O. No. 2/2006) stating himself being in possession of a plot of land measuring 60 x 80 comprised in Araji No. 127 at village Tadamangla, having been purchased by him under a registered sale deed dated 11.11.2003 from one Omji Gautam Raoji. The plaintiff has alleged unauthorised interference in and attempt to dispossess him from the land in question by the defendants; and has prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction that the defendants should not create any interference in the use and occupation of the land and raising of construction by him. The petitioner-plaintiff has also prayed that if the defendants take over possession during the pendency of the suit, they be dispossessed and possession be restored to him (Plaint Annex.1). The defendants have denied the plaint allegations and have asserted, inter alia, that the land in question as referred in the plaint is of Araji No. 129 in the khatedari of defendant No. 1, Poonam Chand. It has also been asserted that Omji and others have attempted to get converted the land of Poonam Chand in Araji No. 129 while representing it to be the land of Araji No. 127; and that appropriate proceedings were pending in the competent court.

(3.) It appears from the material placed on record that the written statement was filed by the defendants on 10.04.2006, some documents were filed by them on 04.05.2006, and then, the case file was sent to the Appellate Court (in the appeal relating to interim order) and was received back by 05.01.2007. The suit proceedings were adjourned on 05.01.2007 for admission/denial of the documents ; on 12.02.2007, the defendants filed documents and the matter was again adjourned for admission/denial; on 12.03.2007, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave; on 09.04.2007 and 27.04.2007, the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner filed some documents and the matter was again adjourned for admission/denial; on 13.07.2007, the learned Presiding Officer was again on leave; then on 24.08.2007, counsel for the plaintiff filed some more documents and issues were framed and the matter was posted for plaintiff s evidence on 12.09.2007.