Amendments to include new parties in a pending suit are permissible if they clarify existing claims without introducing new causes of action, ensuring effective adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.

1. Heard Sri Hari Shankar Jain, learned counsel for the plaintiff, Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi appearing through virtual mode and Sri Nasirruzaman, Afzal Ahmad, learned counsel for the defendants on amendment application A-31 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC before this Court.

2. In this amendment application, 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.

3. The plaintiffs prayed for leave to implead Union of India through Secretary Home Affairs and ASI as defendant as well as leave to add 04 new paragraphs in the plaint after paragraph 95 marked as 95A, 95B, 95C, 95D in the plaint in the light of notification no. 1669/1133- M issued sub section (3) of section 3 of Ancient Monuments Preservation Act (VII of 1904) published in official Gazette on 27.12.1920 wherein portion of Katra mound which are not in the position of nazul tenants on which formerly stood a temple of Keshav Dev which was dismantled and the site utilized for the mosque of Aurangzeb in Muttra (presently Mathura) has been declared as ASI protected monument.

4. In this suit, prayer has been made in the plaint to pass declaratory decree declaring that the plaintiff no. 1 and 2 are owners of the property in question as described in para-01 of the suit and devotees have right to have Darshan, Pooja and perform rituals at the birth place of Lord Krishna situated within the structure in question as described in para-01; Decree of suit for permanent injunction restraining the Trust of alleged Masjid Shahi Idgah, their workers, men, attorneys, followers from interfering in Darshan, Pooja and performance of rituals by devotees at the birth place of Lord Shri Krishna situated within the structure in question; Decree the suit for mandatory injunction directing the Trust of alleged Masjid Shahi Idgah to remove the structure in question as described in para-01 of the suit; Declare the compromise dated 7.11.1974 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mathura as null and void.

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 designa