- (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) None present on behalf of respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 6. Facts in brief of the present case are that the petitioner-palintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on 10.01.2011, registered as Regular Suit No. 16 of 2011 before IVth Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gonda. During the pendency of the said matter as the defendant to the suit made certain constructions on the land in dispute, so plaintiff moved an an application for amendment (Paper No. KA 2/19) to which objection filed by defendant and by order dated 08.08.2011, respondent No. 2/VIIth Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Gonda, allowed the same. Aggrieved by the said order order, defendant-respondent filed a revision No. 284 of 2011 (Bahadur and others Vs. Mahajan Singh), allowed vide order dated 09.05.2012 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Gonda, under challenge in the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 09.05.2012 passed by respondent No. 1 is illegal, arbitary, unjust and against the law as respondent No. 2 has observed in the order dated 08.08.2011 that a Commission was done in the presence of parties on 21.05.2011 and in the commission report Ga-2/25 and Site Plan Ga-2/26, there is mentioning of newly constructed room and other portion over the land in dispute and from bare perussal of the above commission report and site plan it is clear that during the pendency of Regualr Suit, the construction over the land in dispute was made, as such the application for amendment filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed. He further submits that in the impugned order dated 09.05.2012, the revisional court has given observation that the fact of construction, raised during the proceeding of regular suit, was mentioned in the affidavit only filed in support of application for amendment but not in the application and also when the cause of action arose and what is constructed have not been mentioned in the application, due to which plaintiff/petitioner can make all the land of opposite parties no. 3 to 6 as part of unauthorized land.;