LAXMAN SINGH Vs. CIVIL JUDGE DEOGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 06. 01. 2007 (Annex. 5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deogarh (Rajsamand) in Civil Suit No. 2/2004 rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement as moved by the defendants-petitioners.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the background facts and relevant aspect are that the plaintiff Kishan Singh (respondent No. 2) and the defendant No. 1 Laxman Singh (petitioner No. 1) are bothers; the defendant No. 2 Deepak (petitioner No. 3) is the son of defendant No. 1; and the defendant No. 3 Smt. Kamla (petitioner No. 2) is the wife of the defendant No. 1. By way of the present suit, as filed on 01. 05. 2004 against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff has sought perpetual injunction with the averments, inter alia, that a 30' x 45' plot of land as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint is of his ownership and has been in his possession ever since it was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 30. 11. 1975; that after leaving a way in between, towards eastern side of the aforesaid plot is situated another piece of land as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint that was allotted to the father of the plaintiff by Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 06. 03. 1963; and that father of the plaintiff had expired and the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 are in joint possession of the land as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint having 1/2 share each. While alleging that the defendants attempted to forcibly raise construction on the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, entered into altercations, and threatened that they would take over possession of father's plot too, the plaintiff has prayed for injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint and further be restrained from raising construction or interfering with joint possession of the plaintiff on the property described in paragraph 2 of the plaint.

(3.) THE learned Trial Court has rejected the said application for amendment by its impugned order dated 06. 01. 2007 with the observations that nowhere has it been indicated in the original written statement that any patta was issued to the defendant No. 1 by Gram Panchayat, Lasani and that such a patta was not traceable despite efforts. THE learned Trial Court has observed that permitting such amendment on the basis of the assertion that the alleged patta has now been found would be altering the entire scope of the suit and to create complications in just decision of the matter. Aggrieved by rejection of their application for amendment, the defendants have preferred this writ petition.