ANKUR BAJAJ Vs. HANS RAJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ankur Bajaj, the plaintiff is before me as petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 04.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Fazilka whereby his application for impleading Hans Raj and others as defendants no. 5 to 9 and for making consequential amendments under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 51 kanals 15 marlas situated in village Naulan, Tehsil Fazilka is joint Hindu family property of the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 and that the decree dated 13.06.1990 passed in Civil Suit No. 866-1 of 1990 titled 'Maya Bai etc. v. Hardial' by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Fazilka is illegal, null and void and collusive and therefore liable to be set aside.

(2.) The suit has been contested by the defendants. After the evidence of the parties had been over and the case was being prepared for arguments, it came to the notice of learned counsel for the plaintiff that Hans Raj and others are required to be impleaded as defendants No. 5 to 9. He has claimed in the application that Hans Raj and Mehar Chand are purchasers of the suit land and they are required to be impleaded as defendants no. 5 and 6. He has further claimed that they were found to have alienated the suit land in favour of Mangat Ram and Raj Kumar during the pendency of the suit and so both of them are required to be impleaded as defendants No. 7 and 8. It is further claimed that Raj Kumar mortgaged the land in favour of PNB Cycle Bazar and, therefore, PNB Cycle Bazar is required to be impleaded as defendant No. 9. Plaintiff has claimed that these facts are also required to be incorporated in the plaint by way of paragraphs 8-A to 8-C as well as in the relief clause. It is further claimed that the amendment if allowed would avoid multiplicity of the suits and no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. It is, however, claimed that if the amendment is not allowed, the plaintiff would he highly prejudiced.

(3.) The application has been opposed by defendant No. 1 claiming that purchase of land by Hans Raj and Mehar Chand sons of Babu Ram was in the knowledge of the plaintiff. According to him, further alienation in favour of Mangat Ram and Raj Kumar had been there before filing of the suit. It is claimed that their names are clearly mentioned in the copy of jamabandi for the year 2000-01, which are Ex.P-1 and D-2 on the record. It is further claimed that the plaintiff did not make them parties to the suit at the time of the filing of the suit for the reasons best known to them. By way of amendment, the plaintiff wants to fill up lacunae left in the suit. It is further averred that if any purchase of land is made during the pendency of the suit, the principle of lis-pendens would take care the interest of the plaintiff. The other averments of the plaintiff are denied and the application is prayed to be dismissed.