P.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner -Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the Defendant -Respondents in respect of land described at the foot of the plaint. The suit lingered on for about 23 years and was ultimately dismissed on merits. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the trial court the Plaintiff filed an appeal in the court of District Judge. In appeal the Plaintiff moved an application praying to insert the following paragraph 12 -A in the plaint by way of amendment; 12 -A. That otherwise also, the plain tiff/deity was the Sir holder of the property in question which was assessed in Uttar Pradesh to the land revenue less than Rs. 250.00 annually and by operation of law, the deity became the bhumidhar automatically of the property in question. The Defendants No. 2 and 3 had no right or interest in the property in question. The amendment was opposed on behalf of the Defendants. Ultimately the appellate court rejected this application for amendment. Against the rejection order dated 1 -8 -91 the Plaintiff has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) THE case of the Plaintiff in amendment application (Annexure '4' to the writ petition) was that the property in question was the "Sir" at the relevant time and the document showing the land as "Sir" was on record. It was on account of accidental slip that this fact could cot be mentioned in the plaint. It was, therefore, with a view to clarify the pleadings and to avoid any technical objections and controversy at the time of argument that the amendment was sought. The contentions raised by the Defendants opposing the amendment sought were that it has never been the case of the Plaintiff that the land in dispute was "Sir" either of the Plaintiff or his predecessor -in -title or it was ever cultivated. On the contrary the plaint case was that the land was a grove and at the time abolition of Zamindari there was a building, PARAO, trees and some portion of land was put to casual cultivation.
(3.) THE objections raised by the Defendant found favour with the appellate court below resulting into rejection of the amendment application.;