Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 990 (HP)

Kailash Kumar v. Reena

2018-05-25

SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as also perused the record so made available in Court, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 3.12.2015, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Court No.III, Amb, District Una, H.P., in Case No.617/14/2012, titled as Smt. Reena vs. Kailash Kumar and others, whereby the application of the defendants (petitioners herein) for amendment of the written statement stands rejected. In the written statement so filed by the defendants, they categorically admit the parties to the lis, to be joint owners of the suit land. Whereas, now, a stand, which is mutually contradicted, is sought to be taken that plaintiff is not entitled to any share, for not being the legally adopted daughter of the original owner, Surender Kumar. In a suit, simplicitor for permanent prohibitory injunction, such status of the parties cannot be allowed to be assailed and more specifically when admission with regard thereto is on record. 2. Learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the following decisions of the apex Court:- (i) L.J. Leach and Co. Ltd. and another vs. Messrs. Jardine Skinner and Co. , (1957) AIR(Supreme Court) 357; (ii) Basavan Jaggu Dhobi vs. Sukhnandan Ramdas Chaudhary (Dead) through LRs. and others , (1995) Supp3 SCC 179; (iii) Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. , (2001) 8 SCC 97 ; (iv) Baldev Singh and others vs. Manohar Singh and another , (2006) 6 SCC 498 ; (v) Usha Balashaheb Swami and others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others , (2007) 5 SCC 602 ; and (vi) Sushil Kumar Jain vs. Manoj Kumar and another , (2009) 14 SCC 38 . Having gone through the same, one finds the apex Court to only re-iterate the settled principle of law, entitling the parties to seek amendment and guiding the Courts to consider various factors with regard thereto. These decisions do not advance the case of the petitioners any further. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of, so also, pending application(s) , if any.