R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since counter and rejoinder-affidavits have already been filed by the parties in this case, as desired by the learned counsel for the parties, the case was heard and is being disposed of finally at this stage.
(2.) By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 29-11.1996 passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Faizabad allowing the amendment of written statement at appellate stage.
(3.) It appears that original suit No. 97 of 1986 was filed by the petitioner for specific performance of contract of sale dated 26.6.74 alleged to have been executed by Kamla Singh, the predecessor in interest of the defendants-respondents. It was pleaded that agreement of sale was executed by Sri Kamla Singh for selling the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 20,000 out of which an amount of Rs. 10,000 was paid at the time of execution of the agreement. Meanwhile, Kamla Singh died in September, 1981. The property in dispute came in the hands of the defendants-respondents. Smt. Ram Piarey widow of Kamla Singh instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner sold the land in question to one Sri Prakash Singh. her son-in-law, on 9.7.85. The petitioner by means of notice dated 2.3.86 called upon the defendants-respondents to execute the sale deed in his favour, but they have refused to execute the sale deed. He, therefore, filed the suit for abovementtoned relief. Suit was contested by the defendants-respondents, who have denied the claim of the petitioner. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The trial court recorded findings on all relevant issues in favour of the petitioner and decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 20.10.1989. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed Civil Appeal No. 160 of 1989. During pendency of appeal, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 filed an application dated 4/8.9.1995 for amendment of the written statement. The application filed by the said respondents was objected to and opposed by the petitioner, who has pleaded that the application was apparently mala fide and the amendment sought was highly belated and was not necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties and that the amendment by introducing a factual plea requiring proof could not be permitted at the above stage. The appellate court, however, allowed the amendment application and permitted the written statement to be amended by introducing the plea that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were bona fide purchasers for value of the land in dispute without notice.;