MOTILAL DANGI Vs. SOHAN KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution calling in question the order dated 30.9.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 3, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as "?the Trial Court'), whereby petitioners' amendment application dated 30.7.2019 has been rejected.

(2.) Facts relevant for the present purposes are that on 30.5.2005, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 8.2.2002. The suit, after proceeding at snail's pace, could reach only to the stage of plaintiffs' evidence, when the issues were framed on 16.5.2007.

(3.) The petitioners, vide their application dated 30.7.2019, sought various amendments in the plaint, inter alia seeking to incorporate various facts relating financial capacity of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to project a case that the sale of the disputed land by the defendant No. 1 to them was not bonafide and the same was made only to circumvent the plaintiffs' rights. Various assertions regarding subsequent transaction between defendant No. 1 and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have been sought to be inserted in the plaint, that defendant No. 3, aged 90 years, did not have huge amount of Rs. 25 lakhs at her disposal to buy the property and that the transaction was hit by Benami Transaction Act, 1988. Allegations were levelled that the property was a benami purchase of Azad Kunwar/Bhim Singh.