Vinod K. Sharma, J. - (1.) This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 1048 and 1049 of 1999 involving common questions of law and facts. For facility of reference facts have been taken from Civil Revision No. 1048 of 1999.
(2.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.12.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge (II), Faridabad, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint before the Appellate court when the case was at the stage of arguments.
(3.) The petitioner herein filed a suit against the respondents for mandatory injunction seeking directions to defendant No. 1 to remove unauthorised and illegal construction from the property in dispute and to restore the same in its original position. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court against which appeal was filed in the Court of Additional District Judge, Faridabad. When the case was at the stage of arguments on merits, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved seeking amendment of the plaint in the following manner: That in fact Smt. Savitri widow of late Sh. Ami Chand died in the year 1972. It was on account of misapprehension and inadvertence that the plaintiff mention that Sh. Ami Chand died issueless without leaving any widow. It is even an admitted case of the parties that Smt. Savitri was alive at the time of death of her husband. 11. Addition of the following sub-para at the end of para No. 4 of the plaint: Till her death her share and the share of the parties to the suit in the residential property was undivided and not partitioned. The entire residential properties were partitioned after the death of Sh. Paltoo Ram and Smt. Javitri. 12. Substitution of the following in place of main para No. 6: That the aforesaid property was duly partitioned amongst the three sons of Sh. Paltoo Ram deceased, immediately after his death and of Smt. Javitri in the year 1976 in the following manners, keeping in view the compactness of respective share as well as convenience of the plaintiff and defendants for their egress and ingress in independent manner from their respective share in presence of Sh. Babu Ram Bnardwaj resident of village Banchari, who happens to be cousin of the parties. On the ground that the aforesaid pleas could not taken in the plaint earlier on account of oversight. The proposed pleas are very material for deciding the controversy involved in the case between the parties. Proposed plea will not cause any prejudice to the respondent- defendant nor would charge (change ?) the nature of the case. Hence this application.;