Shankar vs Dina Nath

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 25.7.2001 whereby the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the Petitioner-Defendant was rejected.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Dina Nath, Respondent-Plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration that he alongwith the Defendants both contesting and proforma were the joint owners in possession of the suit land. The case set up was that all the parties/their predecessor-in-interest were tenants under the original owner, Mehant. It was alleged that Sh. Maghu Ram, one of the co-tenants had fraudulently got the land entered in his possession and had also managed to obtain an order under the H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 conferring proprietary rights on him. The Defendants specifically set up a plea that they had obtained proprietary rights under the H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, and, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the basis of this plea, issue No. 2 was framed. The parties went to trial on all issues and the learned Trial Court decided the issue No. 2 in favour of the Defendant and did not give its findings on the other issues.

The Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Mandi who vide judgment dated 9.3.2000 held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the matter. Thereafter, the suit was remanded to the learned Trial Court. Evidence in the case had already been led and the matter was only to be argued.

At this stage, the Defendants filed an application for amendment of the written statement. Basically, the amendment sought for was that Maghu, predecessor-in-interest of the contesting Defendant had not got proprietary rights under the provisions of H.P Tenancy and Land Reforms Act but under the provisions of H.P Abolition of the Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 vide order dated 30.11.1968. The learned Trial Court rejected this application. Hence the present petition.

At the outset, it may be stated that in the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the Petitioner-Defendant, there is virtually no explanation as to why this plea was not taken earlier. The only averment made in this behalf is that the applicant-Defendant had no knowledge about the decision of the Compensation Officer earlier. This is a very evasive statement. There is no explanation as to how, the applicant-Defendant came to know about this order. In fact, the very existence of the said order is in doubt because even with the application for amendment, the copy of the order, in question, was not placed on record. One of the grounds taken by the learned Trial Court to reject the said application was that the copy of the order had not been placed on record. Such copy has not been placed on record alongwith the petition in this Court also and has not been seen the light of day till date.

When a party wants to withdraw a clear-cut statement made by it and wants to take up a plea that it by mistake, had made such a statement and relies upon some judicial order at the fag end of the case then the least which is expected from such party is to place on record a copy of the said order. This having not been done, it appears that this application was moved only with the intention of delaying the proceedings. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is dismissed.

The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 14.2.2011. Since the original suit was filed in the year 1993, the learned Trial Court shall endeavour to decide the same at the earliest and in any event not later than 31.3.2011. The Registry is directed to send the record of the learned Trial Court back so as to reach well before the date fixed.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.