Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, CJ.

1. The order dated 18.06.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Bishnupur in Judicial Misc. case No. 12 of 2014 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2014 allowing an application filed by the defendant-appellant before the learned District Judge, Bishnupur for amendment of the written statement is the subject matter of challenge in this Revision.

2. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs of cancellation of registered gift deed dt. 19.8.2006 and for perpetual injunction.

3. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that he is the owner in possession of a piece of land under patta No. 608 covered by Dag No. 6546, 6547 and 6548 extending to an area of 2.50 acres having half share therein. His co-pattadar is his elder brother. The said co-pattadar also occupied and possessed his share without interference. On 8.4.2008, when the plaintiff-petitioner went to the office of the Settlement Officer, Moirang, he found that his share of land had been mutated in the name of the defendant without his knowledge on the basis of a registered gift deed dated 19th August, 2006 purportedly executed by him in favour of the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff-petitioner immediately filed an application before the Asstt. Survey and Settlement Officer, Moirang in respect of his share of 1.25 acre of land which is the suit land and on the basis of the said application, the name of the plaintiff-petitioner was restored in the relevant land records. The plaintiff-petitioner, thereafter, sold the suit land to one Oinam Manisana Singh of Chigmei village and consequently his name was mutated in the records of the suit land by order dated 12.5.2009 passed in Mutation Case No. 111/AS & SO/Moirang. The plaintiff-petitioner came to know that the defendant-respondent again managed to restore her name in the land records in respect of the share of the plaintiff-petitioner by order of the Director of Settlement, Govt. of Manipur on the basis of the said gift deed. It is the case of the plaintiff-petitioner that he had never transferred the suit land in favour of the defendant-respondent in any manner. The defendant-respondent had forged signature of the plaintiff-petitioner by impersonating him in preparing and registering the gift deed. Therefore, the suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner to declare the said gift deed dated 19th August, 2006 as null and void and also for perpetual injunction.

4. The defendant-respondent contested the suit by denying all the allegations made by the plaintiff-petitioner. It is the case of the defendant-respondent that on 18th August, 2006, out of the total land of 2.50 acres, plaintiff-petitioner gifted his half share from out of patta No. 53/1 covered by Dag No. 6456, Patta No. 53/2(New) covered by Dag No. 6547, patta No. 53/284 covered by dag No. 6458 extending to total area of 1.25 acre. In view of the gift deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, the name of the defendant-respondent was mutated in respect of the said area under gift deed. It is also the case of the defendant-respondent that the gift deed was made by the plaintiff-petitioner with full knowledge of his co-pattadar, Moirangthem Mani Singh who also signed in the said gift deed by affixing his signature on the deed as a witness. It is also pleaded by the defendant-respondent that the plaintiff-petitioner had been paid the money for sale of his share of land in installments by the defendant-respondents and after payment of the full amount, the plaintiff-petitioner suggested that execution of a sale deed in respect of the said land will require huge amount of money as stamp duty. If a gift deed is executed, parties could save money. For the above reason, gift deed was executed instead of a sale deed. However, after the land was mutated in the name of the defendant-respondent on the basis of the gift deed, the plaintiff-petitioner re-entered his name in respect of the land under gift deed