Ganga Ram vs Kashi Ram and Others

Jaswant Singh, J.—Plaintiff/Petitioner has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 5.2.2011 (P1) and order dated 29.7.2010 (P2) whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint at the stage of rebuttal evidence has been dismissed.

It is apparent that the Plaintiff/Petitioner and Defendant/Respondent-Kashi Ram and Ravi Kumar were co-sharers and a tubewell connection was irrigating their joint land. Subsequently, Kashi Ram installed a new bore/tubewell and prayed for shifting of the electric connection to the newly installed bore/tubewell, leading to filing of a suit by the Plaintiff/Petitioner for permanent injunction. The case of the Plaintiff/Petitioner is that though the electric connection was in the name of Kashi Ram but the same had been for the joint use of the co-sharers as also the Electric motor which was purchased jointly. It is submitted that this fact is evident by the receipt in the shape of an affidavit dated 7.7.2003 issued by the seller, which is now sought to be incorporated in the plaint.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the amendment is necessary for the just and effective decision of the case, as the same was also admitted in the cross examination by the Defendant.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Petitioner, I find no merit in the present revision petition.

In my opinion, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application since the suit was filed on 16.2.2008 and this fact of the receipt was required to be proved in the evidence in affirmative by the Plaintiff/ Petitioner. That apart, the Petitioner/Plaintiff has not taken the plea regarding said affidavit dated 7.7.2003 in his pleadings nor produced the same in his evidence.

In view of the above, no case for interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out.

Dismissed.