Honble MAHESHWARI, J.–This writ petition is directed against the order dated 06.01.2007 (Annex.5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deogarh (Rajsamand) in Civil Suit No. 2/2004 rejecting the application for amendment of the written statement as moved by the defendants-petitioners.

(2). Briefly put, the background facts and relevant aspect are that the plaintiff Kishan Singh (respondent No.2) and the defendant No.1 Laxman Singh (petitioner No.1) are bothers; the defendant No.2 Deepak (petitioner No.3) is the son of defendant No.1; and the defendant No.3 Smt.Kamla (petitioner No.2) is the wife of the defendant No.1. By way of the present suit, as filed on 01.05.2004 against the defendants Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff has sought perpetual injunction with the averments, inter alia, that a 30 x 45 plot of land as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint is of his ownership and has been in his possession ever since it was allotted to him by Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 30.11.1975; that after leaving a way in between, towards eastern side of the aforesaid plot is situated another piece of land as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint that was allotted to the father of the plaintiff by Gram Panchayat, Lasani on 06.03.1963; and that father of the plaintiff had expired and the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are in joint possession of the land as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the plaint having 1/2 share each. While alleging that the defendants attempted to forcibly raise construction on the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint, entered into altercations, and threatened that they would take over possession of fathers plot too, the plaintiff has prayed for injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint and further be restrained from raising construction or interfering with joint possession of the plaintiff on the property described in paragraph 2 of the plaint.

(3). Perusal of the record makes out that the plaintiff also filed an application for temporary injunction with the said suit; and on 04.05.2004, while the original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (present petitioner Nos. 1 and 3) put in appearance and filed their reply, the present petitioner No.2 Smt.Kamla moved an application for being impleaded a party to the proceedings with the submissions that the land in question as described in paragraph 2 of the application for temporary injunction (i.e., the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint) is of her exclusive ownership and possession having been gifted by her husband Laxman Singh (defendant No.1); and earlier the land was purchased by her husband from Harendra Singh son of Kushal Singh Rajput for a consideration of Rs. 271/- and had been in his possession for about 39 years. The applicant claimed herself to be a necessary party having direct interest as owner of the property in question. The application as moved by the petitioner No.2 was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 21.05.2004 and she was ordered to be joined as defendant No.3 in the suit and as non-applicant No.3 in the application for temporary injunction. It is borne out from the record that the application for temporary injunction was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 03.06.2004; and the defendants have been restrained from interfering with the land in question.

(4). In the suit proceedings, the defendants-petitioners filed their joint written statement on 03.08.2004 and while stating that the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint was of 40 x 60 size and not 30 x 45 as alleged by the plaintiff, and while alleging that the neighbours have encroached over major portion of the land described in paragraph 2 of the plaint, and while denying the right of the plaintiff to get any injunction issued, the defendants-petitioners proceeded to make additional submissions and raised objections to the effect that the land described in paragraph 1 of the plaint was of the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document