Suneet Kumar, J. - (1.) Petitioner-defendant is assailing the order dated 29 May 2006 passed in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1998 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Smt. Jai Mala Devi and others) by the Additional District Judge, Room No. 1, Saharanpur arising from Original Suit No. 187 of 1992, rejecting the amendment application.
(2.) Plaintiff-first respondent instituted a suit for eviction against the petitioner-defendant. The case of the respondent was that the suit property is a waqf property duly registered under the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, Lucknow in 1926. The mutwalli leased out the property to the husband of the first respondent for 30 years vide registered lease-deed dated 10 January 1961. As per the terms of the deed, lessee was given right to sub-let the property in dispute for establishment of petroleum outlet The lease was of 30 years which was to expire on 10 January 1991. This fact was not disclosed in the plaint. Pursuant to the lease-deed, property was sub-let in favour of the predecessor of petitioner on 5.9.1961 for a period of 30 years i.e. Caltex India. Tenancy of the petitioner was determined through notice dated 23.10.1991, thereafter, suit for eviction and damages was instituted. The petitioner entered appearance by filing written statement. The suit of the respondent was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16 April 1998. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal and during pendency of the appeal, mutwalli of the Waqf filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. read with Section 151 CPC alleging that the property in question is a waqf property duly registered with the U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, Lucknow, the property in dispute was leased by the then mutwalli for a period of 30 years, which expired on 10.01.1991, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent had no right to the property thereafter. The petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 seeking amendment of the written statement contending that on the date of institution of the suit, the respondent was not landlord of the property in dispute and she had no locus standi to institute the suit against the defendant for eviction from the property in dispute, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. By the impugned order, the amendment application has been rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has not put in appearance.;