MOMA BABA PEERZADA Vs. SAJA
LAWS(J&K)-1986-12-12
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on December 17,1986

Moma Baba Peerzada Appellant
VERSUS
SAJA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Pulwama, dated: 17 -11 -1981 dismissing an application of the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment of the plaint for impleading one Gani Thuker as a party in the suit.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner herein had filed a suit for possession on the basis of right of prior purchase in the court of the learned Sub -Judge, Shopian, which came to be dismissed as far back as on 12 -6 -1974. While dismissing the suit, the learned trial court had observed in its judgment that Gani Thuker was not arrayed as a party by the plaintiff, who alongwith Wali were in possession of the said land, and without their presence, no effective decree could be passed in the case. An appeal was preferred against the said Judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned District Judge, Pulwama. While arguments were being heard by the learned District Judge in the said appeal, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint for impleading Gani and Wali as parties in the suit. The learned District Judge rejected the said application and hence this revision.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The record was thoroughly examined. The learned District Judge has dismissed the application in question of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner was allowed sufficient time by the learned trial court for amendment in question, and he had not availed of that opportunity. Not only that he had declined to make any such amendment. In this regard, the Judgment of the learned trial court was examined wherein it has been observed as under. "during the course of arguments, this fact was brought to the notice of the counsel for the plaintiff and after the arguments, I have postponed the Judgment upto 3rd of May, 1974 and on this date, the Judgment could not be pronounced because the counsel for the plaintiff wanted to move an application for permission to seek an amendment and for making Gani Thuker as party to the suit. He was given an opportunity to do so and the case was postponed for 6th of June, 1974. On this date, the counsel for the plaintiff stated that he does not want to amend his suit and wanted a " decision in the suit. The interim order dated 6ih of June, 1974 bears the signature of the counsel for the plaintiff when he stated that he does not want to seek the amendment;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.