Hoshiar Singh Thakur (Deceased) ... vs Sudesh Kumari & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 15660 HP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

                                                  CMPMO No. 375 of 2023




                                                                                   .
                                Decided on: 07.10.2023





    Hoshiar Singh Thakur (deceased) through his Lrs.
                                                                                    ...Petitioners





                                         Versus
    Sudesh Kumari & Ors.                                                         ...Respondents

    Coram:
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.





    Whether approved for reporting? 1 No.

    For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Sr. Advocate with
                          Mr. Sumit Sood, Advocate.


    For the Respondents : Mr. G. D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit
                          Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and
                          2.

    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

The legal representatives of defendant No. 7 are the

petitioners, who aggrieved by the dismissal of the application for

amendment of the written statement, has filed the instant

petition.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit on 25.09.2000 for partition

and vide judgment dated 23.09.2017, the suit was decreed and

preliminary decree for partition was passed.

3. The appeal was preferred against the same by

defendant No. 7 (predecessor-in-interest of the present

petitioner) and the same was remanded back to the learned Trial

Court after noticing that the decree had been passed against the

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

dead persons, as during the pendency of the suit defendants No.

4 and 5 had died.

.

4. It is 23 years after filing of the suit, that the instant

application for amendment of the written statement came to be

filed by the legal representatives of defendant No. 7 whereby, it

was pointed out that certain facts regarding bifurcation of

original khewat and creation of new khasra numbers were sought

to be taken as preliminary objections by incorporating a specific

plea that the suit was not maintainable being bad for partial

partition.

5. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application on

the ground that the same was devoid of merit and aggrieved

thereby the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

gone through the documents appended with the petition.

6. To say the least, the instant petition appears to be a

gross abuse of the process of Court and has been filed by the

petitioners simply in order to delay the outcome of the suit,

ostensibly because they are in possession of the suit land or a

major chunk thereof and are trying to protect the possession by

raising the plea of adverse possession.

7. It would be noticed that the application seeking

amendment does not even mention as to why and how the

proposed amendment is necessary for just adjudication of the

case and for determining the real controversy between the

.

parties.

8. What is still worse is that it has not even been

mentioned as to why the proposed amendment had not been

filed at an early stage and what had prevented the petitioners

from doing so. It is for these very reasons that the learned trial

9.

r to Court has rightly dismissed the application and, therefore, no

case for interference is made out.

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed, so also

pending applications, if any.

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

7th October, 2022 (sanjeev)