Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2680 (ALL)

Ghanshyam v. Radheyshyam @ Lallu

2014-09-01

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2014
JUDGMENT Abhinava Upadhya,J. Heard Sri Rajeev Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. C. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the trial court under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 30.4.2014 by which an amendment sought by the plaintiff in the suit has been rejected against which a revision was filed and same has also been rejected. 3. The suit has been filed for eviction and permanent injunction being Suit No.3 of 1999. In the said suit written statement was filed by the defendants in the year 1999. On 28.06.1999 in the written statement, a categorical stand was taken that defendants are in possession of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.1. The suit was contested by the parties and is now at the stage of evidence. At this stage, plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the plaint for cancellation of various sale deeds as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the application under Order 6 Rule 17. The trial court, however rejected the application holding that the said application has been filed only to delay the proceedings and it also changes the nature of suit. The revisional court also affirmed the order of the trial court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the finding recorded by the trial court is perverse, inasmuch as the said amendment is necessary in proper adjudication, although the said amendment has been filed with some delay, but that cannot be the only reason for rejecting the application, if otherwise it can be proved that the suit cannot be properly adjudicated without said amendment. 5. I have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. C. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents. 6. It is true that only delay cannot be the sole reason for rejection and the application for amendment can be allowed, if it helps the court in proper adjudication of the dispute. But in the present case, I am not inclined to interfere, because of the reason that by amendment, the petitioners have sought cancellation of various sale deeds executed between 1993 to 1998. But in the present case, I am not inclined to interfere, because of the reason that by amendment, the petitioners have sought cancellation of various sale deeds executed between 1993 to 1998. It is true that for cancellation of aforesaid sale deeds the petitioners could have filed a separate suit and to avoid multiple suits petitioner could have brought an amendment in the current suit itself. Now, if such a suit for cancellation of sale deed itself is barred by limitation, then such a prayer cannot be made by amendment in the already existing suit. Under the limitation act for cancellation of sale deed, the period prescribed is three years from the date of the execution of the sale deed. That period is long over, as such, by such amendment, the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise dispute, which otherwise is barred by limitation. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in the writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed.