Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Jageshwari Prasad Mathur learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.2 and 3.
By means of the impugned order passed by the revisional court on 19.03.2021, the amendment application filed by the petitioner/revisionist before the revisional court below in SCC Revision No.3 of 2017 i.e. 20-Ga has partly been rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that an application for amendment was made at the revisional stage seeking incorporation of certain legal grounds hence rejection of such an application by the revisional court below is erroneous and is vitiated in the eye of law.
On a careful scrutiny of the order impugned herein this writ petition, it is gathered that the petitioner was substituted in the suit as a legal heir of the original tenant namely Late Jamuna Prasad Mishra and is a party to the revision as revisionist. Several amendment applications were filed prior to the one which has been rejected by means of the impugned order. The ground urged before the revisional court below that the revisionist was not recognized as a tenant by itself is not made out either from the notice or the contents of the plaint. As such, incorporation of any such ground raising a dispute of tenancy is misconceived.
On the aspect of abatement due to non impleadment of certain other legal heirs, it is clear that the petitioner is a joint tenant after the death of original tenant namely Late Jamuna Prasad Mishra and he is a party to the proceedings. At this stage when the suit has already been decided by judgement/decree dated 20.11.2016, a plea of abatement may not be legally maintainable at the instance of a joint tenant i.e revisionist who was a party throughout.
The decree would be binding upon all the joint tenants in occupation. The question in this regard raised before the revisional court below , if any, is bound to be considered in the light of pleadings available on record, the evidence led by the parties and the law applicable in this behalf.
With the above clarification, the order impugned herein this writ petition does not call for any interference and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
The revisional court is expected to conclude the proceedings expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the court concerned. Parties are expected to co-operate with the proceedings.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Shahnaz