- (1.) Petitioners Sunil Kumar @ Kalia and another have filed this revision petition against Patasi Devi and other respondents under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.09.2013, vide which application for amendment of written statement has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Rewari. Notice of motion was issued and respondent No. 1 appeared through his counsel and contested this petition, whereas none appeared on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 4 and service of respondent No. 3 was dispensed with being proforma respondent.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
(3.) From the record, I find that Patasi Devi filed a suit against Sunil Kumar @ Kalia and other defendants. In that suit, an application was filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment in the written statement and counter claim. Defendants sought amendment in the written statement and counter claim on the ground that applicant-defendants claimed to have become owner of the disputed property by sale deed dated 20.09.2005. However, later on it was discovered that recital in the sale deed with regard to the khasra numbers of the properties purchased had been wrongly mentioned. Therefore, during the pendency of the present suit, a supplementary sale deed dated 14.05.2010 has been executed in favour of the applicants-defendants No. 1 and 2 by giving correct numbers of the land. Now applicant-defendants want to incorporate the correct numbers of the land in the written statement and counter claim.;