RAJES KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY means of the present petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 23.9.2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bijnor, by which the revision filed by the petitioners against the order of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bijnor, in O.S. No. 591 of 2000 rejecting the application for the amendment in the written statement has been dismissed. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit No. 591 of 2000 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant petitioners from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff respondents. The claim of the petitioners was based on the sale deed executed in 1971 in respect of the property in dispute in their favour by the father of the petitioners. The petitioners filed written statement. It appears that the respondents have filed an application for mutation on 31.1.2008. The mutation application has been allowed ex parte. The petitioners moved an application for recalling of the order. The said application has been rejected, against which the petitioners filed a revision, which has also been rejected as not maintainable. The petitioners further filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47453 of 2009, which has been rejected by this Court on 7.9.2009. The petitioners then moved an application on 21.7.2009 for the amendment of the written statement. The amendment sought was that the plaintiff respondents have moved the application for mutation after a long time which raises doubt about the execution of the sale deed, apart from taking the various allegations in respect of the mutation proceedings. The said amendment application has been rejected by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), vide order dated 1.9.2009. The petitioner filed Revision No. 74 of 2009, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 23.9.2009. The Additional District Judge has held as follows: "I have gone through the principles laid-down in these case-laws. I am fully agreed with the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist that the amendment should have been taken liberally at any stage and delay would not cause any prejudice, but here in the matter in hand the besought amendment is of no help to the Court or it does not help the Court on reaching best conclusion rather the conduct of revisionists, as is evident from the record, shows that they are trying to prolong the disposal of the suit and their intention proves that they do not want to let the Court decide the suit. The mutation proceedings do not affect the rights of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed themselves to be the owner in possession of disputed property on the basis of sale-deed dt. 30.10.71, and learned Court below rightly held that the ' existence of rights of plaintiffs depends on the point of validity of sale-deed dt. 30.10.71 and the suit of plaintiff is not the slave of entry of revenue record. So far as this contention is concerned that amendment may be allowed at any stage of suit it is right that amendment may be brought on record at any stage, but if the besought amenament is must and necessary for taking decision on each and every issue. It is also right that delay cannot be the ground of denying amendment, but that amendment should have been genuine one. But here the besought amendment appears to be mala fide in nature as it was brought at the stage of hearing arguments on very weak and juvenile ground which does' not affect the suit nor it does not assist the Court on reaching best conclusion. If the amendment is allowed, it would not assist the Court in adjudication on merits rather allowing of amendment would help the defendants in prolonging the disposal. As such, the revisionists cannot obtain the benefit of case-laws submitted by them at the stage of revision because the facts and circumstances involved in these case-laws are entirely different from the case in hand. The impugned order is just and proper and has been passed within the jurisdiction of learned Court below and byway of this revision it requires no interference. This civil revision has no force."
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Order VI Rule 17, C.P.C. the amendment can be made at any stage of the proceeding. He further submitted that liberal view should be taken in allowing the amendment in the written statement. In support of the contention he relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Usha Balashsheb Swami and others v. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, AIR 2007 SC1663. He submitted that the amendment sought in the writ petition has a material bearing to decide the real issue of the suit. Therefore, the amendment ought to have been allowed.;