- (1.) Heard Sri Krishna Agrawal, for the petitioners and Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, respondent-3.
(2.) This petition has been filed for setting aside the orders of Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, dated 21.01.2016, allowing amendment application for amendment of plaint, under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. of respondent-3 and In-charge District Judge dated 13.04.2016, dismissing the revision of the petitioners, filed against aforesaid order.
(3.) Smt. Indra Devi Kanodia (respondent-3) filed a suit (registered as O.S. No. 1432 of 2001) for permanent injunction, restraining, Kanpur Development Authority (the defendant) from demolishing boundary wall and interfering in her possession over Plot 2/3 (area 1510 Sq. yard), situated at 120' Ganga Marg, Old Kanpur. It has been stated in plaint that Development Board Kanpur (predecessor-in-interest of the defendant) published notices for auction of certain plots, situated at old Kanpur. In pursuance of notice, 22 plots were auctioned on 22.09.1957, in which the plaintiff also participated. The plaintiff was highest bidder at the rate of Rs. 20/- per Sq. yard, for Plot 2/3, (area 1510 Sq. yard) situated at 120' Ganga Marg, Old Kanpur. As was directed, the plaintiff deposited Rs. 7600/- with P. Stanwill & Company, the auctioneer, at the time of auction. Vide letter dated 13.11.1957, the plaintiff was informed that her auction was confirmed by Administrator, Kanpur Development Board, who thereafter, executed a permanent lease dated 25.07.1958 (registered on 01.11.1958), for a period of 99 years of aforesaid plot. Thereafter, the plaintiff deposited remaining consideration of Rs. 13,584.62/-. Delivery of possession over land in dispute was delayed. Kanpur Development Authority wrote a letter dated 16.03.2000 and asked the plaintiff to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,08,158.85/-, which was deposited by him on 29.03.2000. Thereafter, Kanpur Development Authority delivered physical possession over disputed land on 31.05.2001, of which, the plaintiff erected boundary wall. Kanpur Development Authority issued another notice dated 03.09.2001 to the plaintiff to vacate a portion of allotted plot, which was falling in old plot 61. On service of notice, the plaintiff approached Kanpur Development Authority and wrote a letter dated 06.09.2001 to cancel notice dated 03.09.2001 but nothing was done. On inquiries, it was revealed that some influential persons had approached Kanpur Development Authority to cut the size of the plot allotted to the plaintiff, in whose influence notice dated 03.09.2001 was issued. On 20.11.2001, officials of Kanpur Development Authority came on spot and made measurement of the plot of the plaintiff and tried to demolish boundary wall but due to resistance, they could not succeed. On that day, they went back and threatened that they would come tomorrow with force to demolish the boundary wall. The plaintiff is a valid lessee of disputed plot. Demolition of boundary wall is illegal. On these allegations the suit was filed. The plaintiff also filed an application for interim injunction along with the plaint.;