Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) The petitioner, plaintiff in Title Suit No.154 of 2002, is aggrieved of order dated 29.05.2012 passed in Title Appeal No.92 of 2007 by which application for amendment in the plaint has been declined.
(2.) Title Suit No. 154 of 2002 was instituted by the petitioner for a decree for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit property and for a decree for declaration that the sale deed dated 06.02001 shall not affect his right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. Suit was dismissed by judgment dated 29.06.2007; the petitioner has preferred Title Appeal No.92 of 2007 against the judgment passed in Title Suit No.154 of 200 In the pending appeal the petitioner has filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint for incorporating the following paragraphs: 1. After para-10 following be added: 10A) That the plaintiff for the first time came to learn about the alleged purported gift alleged to have been made by Md. Idris in favour of the defendant nos. 12, from the written statement filed by the defendant no.12 The plaintiff learnt from the written statement that the defendant no.12 claimed to have acquired the property on the basis of the purported gift dated 5.6.98. It is asserted that the purported gift deed dated 5.6.98 is not genuine and is also not valid. Moreover the purported deed of gift is also not admissible in evidence. 2. After relief (a) following be added: (aa) it be declared that the purported deed of gift dated 5.6.98 alleged to have been executed by Md. Idris in favour of the defendant no.12 is forged and is also not legal and valid and as such the defendant no.12 did not acquire any title to the property on the basis of the said purported deed of gift.
(3.) This application has been dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that the proposed amendment is barred under proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC.;