Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) A suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.6 Smt. Kailashi Devi against Shatrughan first defendant. The petitioners who are transferees of Shatrughan were subsequently impleaded as defendants in the suit. The petitioners filed a written statement. Later on the petitioners applied for amendment of the written statement but their application was rejected by the trial court by order dated 31.5.1995 affirmed in revision by order dated 23.1.1996 of the Additional Commissioner. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board took the view that the amendment changes the nature of the defence case and it also held that the application was filed after long delay and consequently rejected the revision by order dated 16.4.1999. These orders have been challenged in this petition.
(2.) The case of the plaintiff Smt. Kailashi Devi was that the property in dispute plot no. 290 area 94 decimal was the bhumidari of Sankarshan, father in law of the plaintiff who had given the plot in dispute to her as gift. According to the plaintiff the plots in dispute were constituted out of certain plots and the Settlement Officer Consolidation had decided the dispute in favour of the plaintiff and the revision filed by the defendants was dismissed but by mistake the name of the plaintiff was not entered in the revenue records. In the written statement originally filed the petitioners challenged the gift and they also set out the plots numbers from which the plot in dispute was constituted. These numbers were different from the plots given in the plaint. By the amendment application the petitioners have sought to delete the paragraph relating to the plots numbers from which the plot in dispute was constituted. Certain other pleas have also been taken.
(3.) I have heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Rai holding brief of Shri Sankatha Rai counsel for the petitioners and Shri A.K. Shukla counsel for plaintiff respondent.;