Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7720 of 2015 Petitioner :- Smt. Soniya Devi And 6 Others Respondent :- Shri Roshan Singh And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Sudhanshu Pandey
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for setting asiding the order passed by the trial court on 26th July, 2013 rejecting the amendment application of the petitioner to amend the plaint and the order dated 10th November, 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Aligarh in revision petition confirming the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the suit was filed for partition of the ancestral property against the contesting defendants respondents, however, the contesting defendants respondents denied the petitioner to be belonging to the same family.
Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs-petitioners moved an amendment application to amend the plaint to the effect that they were disclosing the pedigree of the family in order to establish that the plaintiffs descended from the common ancestor and, therefore, the suit filed for partition was tenable.
Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that after the parties had concluded their evidence and the suit was at the stage of final hearing the plaintiffs had come forward to seek the amendment in the plaint which could further delay the suit proceedings that had already reached at the final stage.
He has drawn the attention of the court towards the findings returned by the trial court in this regard.
However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners just want to bring on record the pedigree by amending plaint and they do not want to lead any further evidence. He submits that even if evidence is concluded as the suit is at the stage of final hearing mere insertion of a plea incorporating the pedigree of the plaintiffs and the defendants would only file objections and no further evidence is required to be led.
To this above statement made on behalf of the plaintiffs, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submits that if plaintiffs do not want to lead any further evidence on the pedigree being incorporated in the plaint, the defendants would not have any objection but at least one opportunity be provided to file reply to the relevant paragraphs in which pedigree is directed to be incorporated.
In view of the above and the agreement reached between the parties, this petition stands disposed with a direction that the order passed by the court below insofar as the amendment application is concerned is hereby set aside.
Accordingly, the amendment application is allowed.
The petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary amendment forthwith in the plaint and the written objection, if any, questioning the pedigree shall be filed by the contesting respondents within 30 days. Thereafter, the trial court shall proceed to decide the matter on the basis of the pleadings available on record and the evidence already led by the parties in accordance with law, if possible within next six months.
With the aforesaid observations/ direction, this petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Atmesh