Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) CLAIMING themselves to be owners in possession of the land, the plaintiffs, respondents herein, had made an application before the court below for amendment of their plaint which was allowed by the lower court vide impugned order of 12.9.2013 (Annexure P -7). It is against this order that the defendant Gram Panchayat, petitioner herein, has filed this revision petition claiming that at the fag end of the trial when the final adjudication is going to be made by the court below, amendment of the pleadings would amount to setting up entirely a new case by the respondents -plaintiffs and would, in fact, result in de -novo trial. Counsel for the respondents -plaintiffs, on the other hand, has urged that it is mandatory for the court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Support in this regard has been sought from Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K. Modi and others : 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 577 (Supreme Court).
(2.) HEARING has been provided. Facts are not disputed. There is consistent case of the respondents -plaintiffs that they are owners in possession of the suit land and the Gram Panchayat has nothing to do with it. On the other hand, the Gram Panchayat, petitioner herein, is also consistent that the land belongs to it and though was in possession of respondents -plaintiffs as trespassers, had been got vacated from them since long and thereafter was being leased out on year to year basis to the highest bidder at the auctions held every year for the purpose. It is also urged that now Primary Health Centre has also come up on the land and the respondents -plaintiffs have neither possession nor any interest in the land.
(3.) REVENUE documents filed even by the respondents -plaintiffs unequivocally reveal that the Gram Panchayat is owner of the land. The respondents -plaintiffs have been in litigation with the Gram Panchayat. The respondents -plaintiffs though were emboldened by order dated 25.4.2005 of Assistant Collector First Grade, Gurgaon who had adjudicated the matter in favour of the respondents -plaintiffs holding them as occupants/tenants. The Gram Panchayat then had filed an appeal against the said orders of Assistant Collector First Grade, Gurgaon. District Collectors, Gurgaon vide his order dated 31.3.2006 had accepted appeal of the Gram Panchayat and reversing order dated 25.4.2005 of the Assistant Collector First Grade, had rather ordered that the respondents -plaintiffs would pay Rs. 10,000/ - per hectare for keeping possession of the land which they illegally retained without any grant, lease or license in their favour.;