The court emphasized the importance of considering the necessity of proposed amendments and the relevance of evidence before allowing applications under CPC and the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dtd. 7/1/2023, passed by the Court of 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhind, whereby petitioners' application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC and application under Sec. 33 of the Evidence Act were rejected.

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Late Surajkumari alias Surajkunwar w/o Late Kayam Singh was the owner of agricultural lands bearing survey nos. 53(1.22 hect.), 369(0.042 hect.), 382(0.26 hect.), 794(0.38 hect.), 803(0.68 hect.), 887(0.52 hect.), 1229(0.24 hect.), 1645(0.28 hect.) and 1668(0.28 hect.), situated at village Barakala, District Bhind alongwith 1/3 rd share of the lands bearing survey no.839(0.4 hect.) and 843(0.94 hect.), situated in the same village. After the death of Late Surajkumari, the petitioners filed an application bearing Revenue Case No.71/10-11 A-6 "Yashpal Singh Vs. Ashok Singh" before the Court of Tahsildar Bhind, for mutation of the aforesaid lands, which are disputed, on the ground that the said lands were undivided ancestral property of the petitioners and Late Kayam Singh, wherein after the death of Kayam Singh, his wife Surajkumari was having limited right and after her death, petitioners became the owner of the said property. Learned Court of Tahsildar Bhind vide order dtd. 30/3/2013 mutated the disputed lands in the name of the petitioners.

3. Thereafter, the respondents no. 1 to 4, filed a Civil Suit bearing No.43-A/2014 before the Court of Second Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhind for declaration of their title over the disputed lands and also for the possession of the same stating therein that they are sons of the brother of Late Surajkumari, and since Surajkumari was not having any issue and was living with the respondents no. 1 to 4, therefore, she vide registered 'Will dtd. 1/1/2011' bequeathed the disputed land to the respondents no. 1 to 4, hence, after the death of Surajkumari, the respondents no. 1 to 4 have become the owner of the disputed lands. During trial of the above Civil Suit, at the stage of defence evidence, the petitioners, filed an application dtd. 8/12/2022, under Order VI Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of CPC, seeking permission to amend para 1 and 2 of their written statements and to correct the name of the husband of Late Surajkumari as Kayam Singh, instead of Kayam Singh alias Kalyan Singh, and also the word "plaintiff" instead of "defendant." On 14/12/2022, they filed another application under Sec. 33 of the Indian Evidence Act for taking certified copy of the statements of a witness Krishna Avtar, recorded before the Court of Tahsildar, Ex.D/4, as defence evidence. On 15/12/2022, they filed another application under Order VIII Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 of CPC for taking certified copy of the photo voter list, showing the name of the husband of Late Surajkumari as Kayam Singh. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order rejected all the aforesaid three applications, hence, this petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that it is apparent from the written statement filed by the petitioners that the name of the husband of Late Surajkumari alias Surajkunwar was Kayam Singh, and petitioners have specifically denied the fact that respondents no. 1 to 4 were having any relationship with Surajkumari, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners by way of proposed amendments want to withdraw any admission and have filed the amendment application just to fill up any lacuna. Admittedly, the petitioners had filed the revenue case bearing No.71/10-11/A-6, wherein statements of witness Krishna Avtar were recorded in the presence of the respondents. Now Krishna Avtar has died, therefore, his statements recorded in the aforesaid case, Ex.D/4, are relevant and admissible under Sec. 33 of the Indian Evidence Act. Certified copy of the photo voter list, showing the name of the husba