9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant herein. The aforesaid revision petition was filed against an order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 20.08.2016, vide which the appellant's application for amendment of the plaint and for impleading another party to C.S. No. 950/2013 had been dismissed. 3. The brief facts leading to the instant appeal are as follows: Kamlesh Gupta, the plaintiff in the abovementioned suit (the appellant herein), had mortgaged shop bearing MC No. B-22/56 (15'X60') with Mangat Rai, the first defendant in the suit (the first respondent herein), for a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs vide a mortgage deed dated 22.09.2009. The plaintiff later filed C.S. No. 950/2013 for possession of the suit shop by way of redemption on the payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its knowledge. 7. The Single Judge of the High Court, while deciding the revision petition arising from the dismissal of the application, also came to the conclusion that since the facts that were sought to be added by way of amending the plaint were within the knowledge of the plaintiff, her application was hit by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, which prevents a party from amending the plaint post the commencement of the trial, unless the Court concludes that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Notably, the Single Judge did not provide any reason for rejecting the prayer for impleadment, and proceeded to dismiss the entire application only by referring to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In any case, the fact that Pawan Kumar is now in possession, though unauthorised, has not been disputed by any of the parties. In the present scenario, therefore, even if a decree is granted in favour of the plaintiff, Pawan Kumar may object to the execution of the said decree on the ground that he was not made a party to the suit despite being in possession of the suit shop. 10. We are of the opinion that by virtue of actual possession being enjoyed by Pawan Kumar, he is a necessary party to the present suit. Even otherwise, he is a proper party for the reasons elucidated above. 11. We are aware that, ordinarily, such an application needs to be filed before the commencement of the trial. Undoubtedly, in the present case, the trial has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
