Usha Rani and Others vs Sushma Sharma and Others

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the court below whereby two applications, one for amendment of plaint and other for impleading certain defendants, has been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order. According to him, trial court has gravely erred in allowing the amendment. The persons, who are not concerned with the property, have been impleaded as defendants. Thus, order deserves to be set-aside.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

It appears that plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they were joint owners to the extent of 1/3rd share in the property in question. They also sought certain consequential reliefs. After issues were framed, two applications were moved by the plaintiffs, one seeking amendment and the other for impleadment of additional defendants. Prayer has been accepted by the court below. The court came to the conclusion that plaintiffs were entitled to carry out necessary amendment in case certain facts were not known at the stage of filing the plaint. As regards impleadment, argument that added defendants were not necessary parties, did not find favour with the court, same being matter of evidence. I find no legal infirmity with the order. There is no scope for interference in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.