MOMA BABA PEERZADA Vs. SAJA
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Moma Baba Peerzada
Click here to view full 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
"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;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.