This Pefition coming on for Pxeiimifiaxy Hearing 'Bf'
this day, the Court made the following-
ORDER"
1. Order dated 01.03.2007' passed.&iI11'_'_'(};:S.Ne._57?l4:/ i'99é*1<.i
rejecting LA.No.9 filed under Oxder:_\(:}- zeeadd'
151 CPO is challenged in this Writ V.
2. Petitioner h.ere§11 is Court below.
The suit is filed by: herein seeking
relief of the defendants to
remove the 'gap eerfied of the suit scheduie
property possession to the plaintifi"
among other filed the Written statemefit
aszld the Based on the pleadings, the
necessaxy issues and the evidence has
comriieziced. ' 'V the matter was set down. for cross-
ekamination P;'W'.1, defendant no.1 -~ petitioner herein has
i'0rWa1vd"w"ith the present appiieation seeking amendment
statement which is rejected by the below.
V dd Petitioner intended to slmzroduce an addifional ylea to the
effect that the property in question is a wakf property owned
fie
..;§._
W131 only enable the defendant to canvass a legal quejefion
regarding jurisdiction of the Civii Court to adjud.ic.e1_te tam'
dispute.
6. Counsel for the 1" respondent
objections filed to the 1eeB:1orand11:£:;”<:4fV:
to the judgment dated 31.012002 Ge. 1997
contends that similar eontetltizififlfid' of the very
same Sy.No.17 by tl1e._very Ytierein against
the p1,a1'nfifi'/1%? _1'taevv':EV.:'ee1t"ire;3elied and the
said order ha\n'11€.gx for the petitioner
herein to that too, by way of
amendment to He further contends that
the natuxje ,oi' if perxnitted wouid seziously
Vtiievplaintifff 13* respondent herein as it
is s:§;1eg§§_t' 'twee fiicetggaoxated after an inordinate delay of four
years when the trial of the case had been
.. .cQn'21:;1enced~. V
hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the materials on record, I find that by the
d"plfJ'resent amendment the defendant is trying to insext a new plea
altogether, which if permitted will have the effect of non~sui%ing
%/
-5-
the piaintifil As rightly pointed by the counsel for the-_. 13′
respondent in the earlier proceedings in O.S.No.528?jiV1§}9?;VV
wherein the respondent herein was the ~
petitioner herein was the defendant, pleéé’ K ”
unsuccessfully by the defendant. The tfiieiowt
suit has answered the plea holdi:§_g”*that ttlere Vwa:§”n;>ehi;;g3 to
.es!:ab1ish that the property in questioiewas the propeny.
The said judgment has therefore not
permissibie for the defendaot. /nhogv, ‘of nearly four
years to come same quesfion of
lack of jurisdicfiop ‘on. ground that it was a
8. The orttiterétpastserlt .:C3ouI’t beiow therefore does not
sufierf or error of jurisciiction so as to
Vtinteurferenoe in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence,
me’-1 fijiomjssed.
Judge