Harbans Singh and Others vs Mahant Manohar Dass and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—This revision petition is directed against order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar by which an application filed by the petitioners herein (respondents in the counter-claim) to amend the written statement to incorporate paragraphs with regard to various other lease deeds having been executed by Mahant Sant Sarup of the land of Akhara Braham Buta to various persons besides the lease deeds already on record, has been dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioners herein submits that the amendment sought is only clarificatory in nature. The pleadings are sought to be incorporated in the written statement with a view that the petitioners may not be denied to lead evidence on the ground that the said fact is not pleaded in their written statement.

In reply, learned counsel for the respondents herein has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction about 11 years back alleging themselves to be lessees over the land measuring 306 Kanals, situated in village Fatehpur Rajputtan, Tehsil and District Amritsar and sought to restrain the defendants therein from interfering in their possession. In the said suit, while filing the written statement, counter-claim was also set up by the defendants in which they had alleged that Mahant Sant Sarup had no jurisdiction to lease out the land in question in favour of the plaintiffs. Eventually, the plaintiffs, who are now the petitioners, withdrew the said suit for permanent injunction on 13.10.1999 and the counter-claim filed by the defendants, which took the shape of suit, was contested, in which the plaintiffs filed their reply. In reply to the counter-claim, the original plaintiffs gave instances of about 98 lease deeds having been executed by Mahant Sant Sarup of the land of Akahara Braham Buta and now in the present application they wanted to further add on the names of about 73 persons in whose favour Mahant Sant Sarup had executed the lease deeds of the land of Akahara Braham Buta. Learned Counsel for the respondents herein has submitted that the present application is only to prolong not only the decision of the counter- claim but also the agony of the respondents herein, who are contesting the suit for the last 11 years and still the applications are being filed by the petitioners herein for amending their reply. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application of the petitioners had observed that:

The reference of the said lease deeds etc. referred herein above otherwise can be brought on record by the respondents while leading evidence after referring such kind of documents referred in earlier amended replication-cum-written reply filed to the counter claim on account of allowing the earlier similar application filed by referring the other documents.

It is submitted that the question in this case is as to whether Mahant Sant Sarup has the jurisdiction and competence to lease out the land of Akahara Braham Buta or not and whether he had executed one lease deed or he had executed 100 lease deeds would hardly make any difference? If he had the jurisdiction to execute one lease deed, then he could execute 100 lease deeds as well. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents herein has submitted that the lease deeds which the petitioners wanted to adduce in evidence, can always be placed on record while leading his evidence. Insofar as the amendment is concerned that is totally misconceived and as a matter of fact it is a device to prolong the litigation.

I have heard learned counsels for both the parties, perused the record with their able assistance and have found that there is no error in the impugned order. The learned Court below has already made observation in the impugned order that the petitioners may lead his evidence in respect of the various lease deeds by referring to such kind of documents which they had already referred earlier. The number of lease deeds is only an add on to the lease deeds which are already on record in great number. Since the respondents herein have not challenged the order of the learned Trial Court in this regard, therefore, the petitioners would be entitled to lead evidence by putting these lease deeds on record when they would lead their evidence, but for that purpose amendment of the written statement is not required and as such the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

No costs.