SURENDRA KUMAR RUNGTA Vs. PAWAN KUMAR SUREKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition assailing order dated 19-3-2004 passed by Fourth Civil Judge Class-1, Katni in Civil Original Suit No. 3-A/2001 by which the defendant's application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to in short 'the Code') has been rejected.

(2.) THE Trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on the ground that in the case plaintiffs have closed their evidence and the proposed amendment amounts to amend pleadings extensively. The proposed amendment has been sought to delay the proceedings and is not necessary for the just decision of the case.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment is necessary for the just decision of the case. The petitioner is raising pleas which are necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. The suit is filed on the ground that the document in question is mortgage deed while there is no mortgage deed executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant. In fact, it is sale-deed which was executed on 8-5-1972. The petitioner is raising plea in respect of factual position that the aforesaid sale deed was acted' upon between the parties and after execution of sale-deed on 8-5-1972, defendant/petitioner applied for mutation of the land in his own name. The Tehsildar, Katni invited objections in this regard and Smt. Kamla Bai, grand mother of plaintiff No. 1, consented to the mutation. The defendant who is in possession of the land as of owner got diverted the land from agricultural purposes to non-agricultural purposes. The matter was enquired by the concerned officer. The land was diverted and the petitioner paid premium on the land. This happened in the year 1973-74. The petitioner is paying monthly tax of the property. In the year 1974, Municipal Council, Katni, enquired from Shiv Dutt Rai through Smt. Kamla Bai vide letter dated 17-6-74, whether she was willing to sell the land to the Council. On receiving this notice, Smt. Kamla Bai submitted a signed reply dated 2-7-74 in which she had admitted that the disputed land has been sold to the defendant by registered sale-deed. Apart from this, out of suit property, defendant has transferred land to 13 persons between the period 1986 to 2001 which is also in the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Apart from this, the plea of limitation is also raised by the petitioner in the written statement. The aforesaid facts are very relevant for the just decision of the case and shall bring the facts before the Court which will help the Trial Court to decide the controversy between parties. On the aforesaid contention, the learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment is necessary and may be allowed. So far as delay is concerned, the other party may be compensated by cost, but merely on the ground of delay, the amendment can not be refused.