M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the order dated 7.2.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 57/95 whereby the amendment petition filed by the defendant has been rejected, From perusal of the record it appears that the plaintiff opposite party filed Title Suit No. 57/95 for eviction of the defendant petitioner from the suit property. The defendant by filing written statement claimed title in himself stating that the suit property was settled in his favour by the owner from whom the plaintiff is claiming. However on the application of the plaintiff the suit was converted into a title suit. In the year 1997 an amendment petition was filed by the plaintiff -opposite party seeking a relief for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The amendment petition was allowed giving liberty to the defendant -petitioner to file written statement. The petitioner did not file any additional written statement. Ultimately issues were framed and the hearing of the suit begun. The plaintiff examined all the witnesses and his evidence was closed. Thereafter the petitioner filed an amendment petition on 17.1.2003 seeking to amend the, written statement by introducing some facts i.e., in 1975 an agreement was executed by one Rukhmini Devi after receiving consideration money and physical possession of the suit property was given to the defendant. The said Rukmini Devi always assured that the deed of sale will be made in favour of the defendant. The defendant further sought amendment to the effect that the defendants were always ready and willing to purchase the suit property. This amendment Was refused by the Court below. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order refusing to allow amendment of written statement. As noticed above to the original written statement the defendant took the plea that he is the owner of the property. Alter the plaintiff evidence was closed in 2003 the plaintiff wanted to take an inconsistent plea of continuing possession of the suit property in part performance of the agreement. Such amendment has rightly been disallowed by the Court below.
(3.) I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. This application is dismissed.;