High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Magan Lal v. S.N. Singh - CIVIL REVISION No. 288 of 1990  RD-AH 5606 (29 March 2007)
Civil Revision No.288 of 1990
Magan Lal Vs. Sheo Nath Singh
Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.
Revision is withdrawn/treated to be withdrawn to this Court under Section 24, C.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This revision is directed against order dated 07.03.1990 passed by First Civil Judge, Meerut in O.S. No.314/81 Magan Lal Vs. Sheo Nath Singh. Through the impugned order, application of plaintiff-revisionist, seeking amendment in the plaint, has been rejected.
The suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed. After about eight or nine years of filing of the suit, application for amendment in the plaint was filed. In the plaint, it was stated that Moola, who had died before filing of the suit, had executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff, however, the defendant illegally purchased the said property on 31.03.1980. The suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed executed by Moola in favour of defendant-Sheo Nath Singh. In the original plaint, however, no relief for specific performance was sought. Amendment application was filed on 14.02.1990. Through amendment application Ved Prakash, Balister Singh and Roogn Singh were sought to be impleaded as defendants (They have not been impleaded as respondents in this revision). It was alleged that Ved Prakash was also purchaser along with original sole defendant Sheo Nath Singh. In respect of Balister Singh and Roogn Singh it was stated that deceased Moola had executed a will in their favour, hence they must be impleaded and directed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff along with original defendant and Ved Prakash. The court below rejected the amendment application on the ground that amendment application was highly belated and if allowed, it would change the entire nature of the suit. The court below also held that the case was running in arguments for months when amendment application was filed. The court below also held that all the necessary ingredients for seeking the relief of specific performance were not there and they were sought to be added through amendment, while evidence was over.
Similarly, in respect of 'Will' also the Court held that the plaintiff was aware about the said 'Will' long before. Hence, amendment seeking impleadment of legatees of the said 'Will' was also highly belated. The court below specifically held that, at least, since 04.01.1982, plaintiff was aware of the 'Will' in favour of Balister Singh and Rugan Singh executed by Moola.
I do not find any error in the impugned order. An amendment which necessitates de novo trial cannot be permitted. Absolutely no reason for inordinate delay was given. The amendment sought, if allowed would have changed the entire nature of the suit.
Therefore, Revision is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.