Anand Prakash vs Naseem Uddin

Ram Janam Singh, Member.

This is a reference made by learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, by his order dated 2351989 in Revision No. 34/198586 arising out of a proceeding under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, recommending that the revision by allowed to the extent that the plaintiffs be permitted to amend their plaint and the defendantoppositeparty be allowed to file additional written statement and that an issue as suggested by his learned predecessor be also framed in the case.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. before the trial Court for being permitted to amend their plaint to the extent that before them their father remained in posession of the land in question for over 12 years and had acquired rights of bhumidhari with transferable rights. The learned trial Court by his order dated 2681986 rejected the application of the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved by this order Anand Prakash and another filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has made the present reference.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The learned Additional Commissioner has considered the matter in detail and found that in the circumstances of the case the amendment sought by the plaintiffs should have been allowed. After a perusal of record I am in agreement with the views expressed by the learned Additional Commissioner that the amendment should be allowed. No illegality or material irregularity has been committed by the lower revisional Court.

Agreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner 1 accept t he reference and set aside the order of the trial Court, permit the plaintiffs to amend their plaint in the light of the observations made by learned Additional Commissioner in his order. The defendantoppsiteparty should be allowed to file additional written statement after framing an additional issue the parties by allowed to lead their oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective cases, and then the case be decided on merits in accordance with law.