- (1.) RAJESH Tandon, J. Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal for the revisionist and Sri N. C. Gupta, Standing Counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed against the order passed by the District Judge, Uttarkashi rejecting the application for amendment under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC vide order dated 22-5-1986 passed in original suit No. 9 of 1985 Keshwa Nand Puri v. State of U. P. through Collector Uttarkashi. The brief facts giving rise to his revision are that two suits were filed, one being original suit No. 9 of 1985 Bachan Lal v. State of U. P. through Collector Uttarkashi. In both the suits the prayer was to the following effect: (a) A decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession, occupation and enjoyment of two muthi land granted to him forming part of plot No. 2112 in village Barahat, district Uttarkashi by the Deputy Commissioner incharge, Uttarkashi. (b) Costs of the suit and any other relief which the learned Court may deem fit in the interest of justice or to which the plaintiff is found entitled. Earlier Civil Revision No. 103 of 2001 came up before me arising out of suit No. 9 of 1985 the present impugned order has been passed on 22-5-1986 whereas the earlier order was passed on 16-7-1984. According to the plaint averments the plaintiff applied for the lease of land in village Barahat district Uttarkashi under Government Grants Act for construction of house for residential purposes.
(3.) THE plaintiff/applicant for amendment in the plaint, the same having been rejected by the learned District Judge vide his order dated 22-5-1996. THE order has been challenged by filing the present revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure. I have perused the pleadings of the parties. In my opinion, the present case is fully covered with Civil Revision No. 103 of 2001 where I have allowed the revision. The amendment has been allowed by allowing the revision.;