J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dated 16th September, 1985, whereby the application for amendment of the plaint has been allowed in appeal.
(2.) THE Plaintiffs -Respondents Savitri Devi and another, filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining the Defendant -Appellant Hans Raj from taking possession of the premises, in dispute, in execution of the ejectment order dated 2nd September, 1977. The suit was filed on 7th December, 1977. It remained pending in the trial court for about six years It was ultimately dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27th May, 1983. Appeal against the said judgment and decree of the trial court was filed. However, during the pendency of the appeal, application dated 3rd September, 1985, was moved under Order VI, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint. It was pleaded therein that the Plaintiff -Appellant be allowed to take the plea of adverse possession as the same could not be taken earlier. According to her, no evidence was required to be led by her as the evidence in this behalf was already on the record. The said application was contested on behalf of the Defendant inter alia on the ground that it was mala fide as the same was filed to delay the ejectment proceedings. Moreover, it had nowhere been stated in the application that why the said plea could not be taken earlier. Even the amendment sought for was not necessary for the determination of the real controversy between the parties. The learned Additional District Judge vide impugned order came to the conclusion that the amendments should be allowed liberally. Besides, in this case, the amendment would not change the nature of the suit. Therefore, he allowed the application vide impugned order. Dissatisfied with the same, the Defendant has filed this revision petition in this Court. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that there was absolutely no occasion for the appellate court to allow amendment of the plaint at such a belated stage of the appeal. There is absolutely no explanation why the plea proposed to be taken by way of amendment of the plaint was not taken earlier during the pendency of the suit in the trial court. The appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court was filed in the year 1983. The application for amendment of the plaint was filed in September, 1985. The approach of the appellate court is wholly misconceived to allow the amendment at such a belated stage of the appeal without there being any cogent explanation therefore. It needs no emphasis to say that the parties are not entitled to the amendment of pleadings at the appellate stage as a matter of course when the rights of the parties have already been determined by the trial Court, though, at the same time, the Court is not debarred from allowing the amendment of the pleadings which may be necessary between the parties. No such case has been made out by the Plaintiff Respondent in this case. It could not be disputed that the plea of adverse possession was very much available to her when the suit was filed or at any stage thereafter during its pendency in the trial Court. Having failed to take such a plea at the earliest, the proposed amendment of the plaint could not be allowed in the present case by the appellate court simply by observing that it was clear that the amendments should be allowed liberally. The matter may be different when the suit is pending in the trial Court and the rights of the parties are yet to be finally determined. Once the rights are determined, the matter cannot be re -opened by seeking amendment of the pleadings as a matter of course.
(3.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this revision petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Additional District Judge is directed to decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. The parties have been directed to appear before him on 23rd April, 1986;