- (1.) HEARD Sri Mohan Singh, for the review applicant.
(2.) THIS writ petition was filed against the order of Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. 15 dated 14.04.2011, allowing the amendment application filed by the contesting respondent, for amendment of the plaint and the order of Additional district Judge dated 20.12.2013 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. The writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 12.08.2014. The petitioner has filed this petition for review of the aforesaid order.
(3.) THE facts of the case is that Ram Sagar (respondent -3) filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 139/2006) for cancellation of the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 26.08.1972. It has been stated in the plaint that in 1974, through rumour, the plaintiff came to know that by fabricated a file and order of Consolidation Officer, the land of the father of the plaintiff of was grabbed by the defendant. Against the order of Consolidation Officer, he filed an appeal before Settlement Officer Consolidation which was registered as Appeal No. 5420. But later on, the record of the appeal was not traced and and an order in the appeal was again fabricated. The plaintiff filed a revision, which was dismissed by JDC by order dated 29.12.2005. There was no hope of trace of the record and order of JDC dated 29.12.2005. The record of the appeal as well as revision, were not available, as such, he has no hope to get the orders passed in the appeal and revision. Ram Sagar thereafter filed an application dated 20.9.2009 for amendment of the plaint, in which, apart from other facts, he sought to amend paragraph 13 of the plaint by adding the relief for cancelling the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 08.02.1979 and Joint Director of Consolidation dated 29.12.2005. The petitioner filed an objection to the amendment application, in which the petitioner has stated that the order which are sought to be challenged, are well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the suit, but he has deliberately not challenged the order, therefore, the amendment application was time -barred and could not be allowed. Ram Sagar is trying to withdraw his admission way of amendment application. The proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit, as such, the amendment application is not maintainable. By efflux of time, the right has accrued to the petitioner which cannot be taken away by way of amendment and the proposed amendment is malafide and will cause prejudice and injustice to the petitioner.;