Amendments to pleadings in civil suits should be allowed if they facilitate proper adjudication and do not introduce a new cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

1. S/Sri Hari Shankar Jain, Mahendra Pratap Singh, Saurabh Tiwari, Mrs. Reena N.Singh, Harshit Gupta (through Video Conferencing) and Sri Hare Ram Tripathi, Satyaveer Singh, Kushal Raj Chaudhary, Radhey Shyam Yadav, Prateek Kumar Srivastava, Prabhash Pandey, Mayank Singh, Arya Suman Pandey, Sandeep Kumar Agrahari, Manvendra Kumar, Ashvanee Kumar Srivastava, Bipin Kumar Jaiswal, Vinay Sharma, Siddharth Srivastava, Rana Singh, Anil Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Tiwari Abhishek Rajesh and Ashish Kumar Srivastava, Ashutosh Pandey, in person, (through video conferencing) for the plaintiffs, are present.

2. Mrs. Tasneem Ahmadi (through video conferencing), Sri Nasiruzzaman, Hare Ram Tripathi, Pranav Ojha, Afzal Ahmad, Tanveer Ahmad Khan and Imran, learned counsel for the defendants, are present.

3. Heard Sri Hari Shankar Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi appearing through virtual mode and Sri Nasirruzaman, learned counsel for the defendant on amendment application A-67 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC before this Court.

4. In this amendment application A-67 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, prayer has been made to add certain facts based on notification dated 17.12.1920 issued by Lieutenant Governor, State of United Province and prayer has been made for allowing the plaintiff to implead Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs as defendant no. 5 and ASI as defendant no. 6 in the suits as both amendment application bear identical facts and prayer.

5. In proposed amendment application it is averred that the plaintiffs have come to know that a notification was issued under sub section (3) of Section 3 of Ancient Monuments Preservation Act (VII of 1904) published in official Gazette on 27.12.1920 declaring the property in question as protected monument. In the notification the subject property is mentioned at Serial no. 37. The copy of notification dated 27.12.1920 issued under the authority of Lieutenant governor is annexed as Annexure A-1 to the affidavit.

6. It is further stated in the amendment application that the plaintiff has come to know that the subject property has been declared as centrally protected monument in the list of Agra Circle issued by Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and same figures at serial no. 139. The list of Centrally Protected Monuments of Agra Circle is available on its website is annexed as Annexure A-2 to the affidavit. Subject matter is centrally protected monument under the provision of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act 1958. The property in question was declared as protected monument and at present the same is a centrally protected monument therefore it is necessary to place on record such facts by amending the plaint for proper adjudication of the case as the property in question is a centrally protected monument and the same is under the supervision and management of ASI, the plaintiffs propose to implead them as defendants adding their names in the array of the parties after defendant no. 4 and a prayer has been made to implead Union of India and ASI as defendant no. 5 and 6 in the suit. Defendant no. 5 will be designated as Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Room No. 113, North Block, New Delhi- 110001, E- mail ID and defendant no. 6 will be depicted as Archaeological Survey of India through Director General, 24, Tilak Marg, Bhagwan Das Lane, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi- 110001,