A.L. Bahri, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the defendant challenging order of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon, dated 10th November, 1988, whereby bis application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.
(2.) The Plaintiffs Jaina and others filed suit for declaration of their title in the suit land as co-sharers and for partition of the disputed land with consequential relief of possession. The suit was contested by Musaddi and others defendants denying ownership of the plaintiffs and on the other hand claiming their own ownership. At the stage of defendants evidence, an application for amendment of written statement was filed to take up an alternative plea of adverse possession. This request was declined primarily on the ground that the admission made by the defendants in the written statement in para 3 of the preliminary objections and para 5 on merits, that the defendants were co-sharers in the suit lar.d, was being withdrawn and this was being substituted by a plea of adverse possession
(3.) I have perused copy of the written statement. It will be useful to reproduce these two paragraphs from the written statement:- "3. That the plaintiffs have not at all stated that what are the respective shares of the parties in the lands in suit and have not given other material particulars and the plaint is totally vague, faulty and embarrassing so the suit is liable to be dismissed summarily." "Para 5 of the plaint is wrong and is denied. It is wrong that there is any mistake in the revenue records of which the defendant No. 1 wants to take undue benefit. The plaintiffs have rightly not shown owners in possession of the lands in suit. It is wrong that the said land is coparcenary property. It is wrong that the defendant is not entitled to alienate any portion of said lands. As the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the lands in suit nor they have right to restrain the defendant No. 1 from alienating the land in his possession. They would not suffer any irreparable loss or injury if the defendant sell the land of which he is owner in possession. The defendant No. 1 is owner in possession of the lands bearing Khewat No. 53, Khata No. 89, Rect No. 65, Killa No. 1/2(3-11), 10(8-0), 11(8-0), 12(8.0)20 min. (5-6), measuring 28 Kanals 11 Marlas, a portion of lands in dispute. The defendant No. 1 has been in actual and exclusive possession of the said lands since his fore-fathers for more than 50 years. The said land is far less than his due share in the land in suit. The defendant No. 1 has entered into an agreement to sell the said land long before the filing of the present suit. If the defendant No. 1 sells the said lands, the plaintiffs or other persons would suffer no loss or injury. Besides the lands the defendant No. 1 sells the said lands, the plaintiffs or other persons would suffer no loss or injury. Besides the lands the defendant No. 1 has enough land to compensate them. If the defendant No. 1 is restrained to perform his part of contract according to that agreement he would suffer irreparable loss and there would be unnecessary multiplicity of litigation and he would be defamed in the ilaqa for his failure to perform his contract.";