- (1.) SUCLHIR Narain, J. This writ peti tion is directed against the order dated 20-5-1988 passed by Respondent No. 1 rejecting the application of the defendant-petitioner for amendment in the written-statement filed by him in the appeal.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the plaintiff-respondents filed Suit No. 296 of 1982 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering with their possession over a piece of land claimed to be on the Abadi land. The defendant-petitioner filed his written-statement and denied the plaint allega tions. Both the parties led evidence and the trial Court decreed the suit on 5-2-1986. The defendant-petitioner preferred an ap peal No. 135 of 1987 against the judgment and order of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner filed an application for amendment in the writ-ten-statement. This application has been rejected by Respondent No. 1 by the im pugned order dated 20-5-1988. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no justification for Respondent No. 1 to reject the application of the defendant-petitioner for amendment in his written-statement. A perusal of the application of the defendant-petitioner for amendment in his written-statement indicates that the petitioner wanted to add in the end of paragraph 2 of the written-statement that plot Nos. 312,316and315 are the exclusive Bhumidhari land of the petitioner. It was further stated in the said application that plot Nos. 310 and 312 had been purchased by him by a registered sale-deed and the plaintiffs had no concern with plot Nos. 15,316,310 and 312. The parties had led their pleadings and evidence in respect of their claim before the trial Court and there was no justification to amend the written statement in regard to the land in dispute. The plaintiff had to prove his case in respect of the identity of the land. In these circumstances the learned lower appellate Court was justified in rejecting the ap plication of the defendant-petitioner for amendment in the written-statement at that stage.
(3.) IN view of the above, the writ peti tion is dismissed. The interim stay order granted by this Court on 26-8-1988 is here by vacated. The learned lower appellate Court shall now decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within three months. Petition dismissed. .;