Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 157 (ALL)

NARENDRA SINGH v. BHARTENDRA SINGH

2000-01-27

D.K.SETH

body2000
D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) IN a suit for declaration of title on the basis of registered deed for partition dated 23rd March. 1974 stated to have been acted upon between the parties, the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had filed a Joint written statement. Subsequently the defendant No. 4 son of Virendra Singh one of the defendant was added as a party and he had filed a separate written statement. He had sought to amend the said written statement which was refused by the learned Civil Judge, Kasganj, Distt. Etah by an order dated 3rd August, 1994 passed In O. S. No. 6 of 1979. The revision was dismissed by order dated 13th December. 1994 passed in Civil Revision No. 487 of 1994. Thereafter the defendant No. 3 filed an application for amendment which was also dismissed by the Impugned order dated 21st September. 1996. This order is since being challenged in this revisional application. ( 2 ) MR. Madhur Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the amendment sought for is in the nature of elucidation of statement already made and shall not change the nature and character of the defence neither it will introduce a new defence or change the front, therefore, this statement should have been allowed. ( 3 ) MR. N. S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that it is the same amendment, which was sought by the defendant No. 4 since been rejected, have been sought to be Incorporated. He further contended that the defendant No. 3 had filed an amendment in the joint written statement though the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not join him. He further contended that the entire matter was aimed to delay the process. The trial courts order, which is languish one. is perfectly Justified, therefore, this petition should be dismissed. ( 4 ) I have heard both the counsel for the parlies at length. ( 5 ) AFTER perusing the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1. He further contended that the entire matter was aimed to delay the process. The trial courts order, which is languish one. is perfectly Justified, therefore, this petition should be dismissed. ( 4 ) I have heard both the counsel for the parlies at length. ( 5 ) AFTER perusing the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1. 2 and 3 as well as the amendment, it seems that the main ingredient which has been sought to incorporate by amendment, are already present in the written statement and the statement made in the written statement appears to be in the context of the suit, inasmuch as in the suit the plaintiff has based his claim on the registered deed of partition dated 23rd March, 1974 alleged to have been acted upon. The defendants have denied the same. In such circumstances, it is not necessary to incorporate the amendments which are unnecessary elaboration of the defence already pleaded in the written statement. Even without the amendment, those facts relating to the question as to whether the deed of partition dated 23rd March, 1974 was genuine or acted upon, as has been pleaded In the written statement itself, can be gone into. The suit was filed some times in 1979, almost 20 years have lapsed. The defendant No. 4, being the son of the defendant No. 1 is sailing in the same boat. He had attempted to incorporate almost identical amendment, once having refused, cannot be brought in by the defendant No. 3 alone in the Joint written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 when the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had not joined him. An amendment of written statement jointly filed by the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be entertained when filed by only one of them. When the written statement was Jointly filed by all the defendants it cannot be amended at the behest of one when other two defendants do not join him. ( 6 ) IN the circumstances, after having heard both the learned counsel and going through the order impugned as well as the written statement and the amendment of the order passed by this Court in the earlier revision filed on behalf of the defendant No. 4, 1 do not find any infirmity in the order Impugned. The civil revision, therefore, falls and is dismissed. The civil revision, therefore, falls and is dismissed. It is expected that this old suit be decided as early as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the learned court below. Mr. Madhur Prakash further contended that the delay cannot be ascribed on the defendant alone since the plaintiff had taken four years to make good the deficiency of the court fee, therefore, the plaintiff is himself equally responsible for the delay. Even it is true there has been a delay of 20 years, therefore, it is necessary that the hearing of the suit be expedited. .