Sangeet Raj Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dt. 24.4.10 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Bikaner in Civil Suit No. 66/08, whereby an application preferred by the respondent -defendant seeking leave to amend the written statement, stands allowed. The petitioner preferred a suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for recovery of possession of a house alleged to have been purchased by her vide a registered sale deed dt. 6.1.07, from Durga Dutt @ Durga Ram S/o Badri Prasad, who was issued patta of the said house by the Municipal Board, Nokha, which was duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Nokha on 23.11.06. It was alleged that pursuant to the sale deed executed possession of the house was handed over to the petitioner by the seller Durga Dutt, however, he was forcibly dispossessed by the defendants, the wife of Durga Dutt and her sons Ganesh and Narayan.
(2.) THE suit was contested by the defendants by filing a written statement thereto. The defendants have taken the stand that the house in question was purchased by father of defendant No. 1 -Smt. Parma Devi in her name vide agreement dt. 11.8.83 and the construction was also raised on the plot purchased by her with the help of her father. It was alleged that the husband of defendant No. 1 Durga Ram is a drunkard and gambler, who by producing fake agreement, got the patta issued in his name, which has been cancelled by the Municipal Board, Nokha on 30.4.07. Accordingly, it was submitted that the patta having been cancelled, the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff by Shri Durga Dutt does not create any right in his favour. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues. The evidence of the parties stand concluded. At this stage, the respondents/40 defendants preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. By way of amendment, the respondents sought to introduce a new para 17A in the written statement taking the stand that the defendant No. 1 is in adverse possession of the house to the knowledge of the plaintiff and everybody else and therefore, on account of adverse possession, she has acquired the title over the property. The application seeking leave to amend the written statement was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff by filing a reply thereto.
(3.) AFTER due consideration of the rival submission to the amendment prayed for has been allowed by the Court below. Hence, this petition.;