RUPA SHAHDEO Vs. MADHUSAUDAN AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the notice, issued by this Court dated 28th February, 2011, all the necessary requisites have been deposited with this Court and the notices have been issued by this Court but the registered A/D cover have been returned by the Postal Department, on the ground that the addresses are incomplete.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also pointed out that on the basis of totally immoral agreement, the whole suit being Title suit No. 48 of 2006 has been filed by the Respondents (original Plaintiffs), who are influencial and powerful persons and have invested the amount in litigation or in a dispute in urban land ceiling matter and on the basis of totally illegal and immoral agreement, which is not enforceable, a Title Suit has been instituted and when the Petitioner wanted to file amendment in the written statement, it has been rejected by the learned trial court, mainly on the ground of delay and on the ground that the evidences have already been started.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner (original Defendant) submitted that the so called agreement, on the basis of which the Title Suit has been instituted, if analyzed, it would appear that it is an agreement to manage the government officials, so that more units under the Urban Land Ceiling Act may be given to the holder of the property, in question, and the benefit instead of going to the holder of the property, in question, will pass on to the Respondents/original Plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 48 of 2006. The so called agreement is, thus, an immoral and illegal agreement, which has been entered into only for managing the government officials and, therefore, the written statement is required to be amended. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court.