AMOM ONGBI RADHAMANI DEVI AND ORS. Vs. THIYAM IBOCHOUBA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Manipur East dated 30.7.2010 in Judl. Misc. Case No.61 of 2009 arising out of Civil Appeal No.16 of 2007. The petitioners had filed OS No.26 of 2000 against the respondents in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Imphal West for declaration of title on the ground that the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint had been purchased by the deceased husband of the petitioner No.1 under the registered sale deed dated 16.12.1981. A further relief was also claimed in the suit for declaration that the order dated 26.9.2000 passed by the SDC/IW (P) in Mutation Case No.1111/SDC(P) of 1999 is illegal and also for relief such as temporary injunction.

(2.) The respondent filed written statement denying the claim of the purchase of the suit land by the deceased husband of the petitioner No.1 and also took alternative plea that even assuming that the land had been purchased by the deceased husband of the petitioner No.1, it was actually a mortgaged deed executed in the form of sale deed. The suit was decreed on 02.5.2005 with a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to receive back an amount of Rs. 9000.00from the respondent within a specified time. Challenging the said decree the present petitioners preferred CA No.16 of 2007 before the learned District Judge, Manipur East. The Civil Appeal was allowed ex parte on 18.7.2008 setting aside the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division and also declaring that the present petitioners have title over the land in dispute. Subsequently the present respondent filed Judl. Misc. Case No.71 of 2008 for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in the above Civil Appeal and the Judl. Misc. Case was allowed and parties were directed to appear again for re-hearing of the appeal.

(3.) During pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the present respondent for amendment of the written statement raising a counter claim. Even though such application for amendment was objected to by the present petitioners, the learned District Judge in the impugned order allowed the amendment observing that such amendment would not change the nature and character of the suit and that no prejudice would be caused to the present petitioners.