JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order dated May 16, 2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala. Vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement was declined.
2. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from demolishing the boundary wall constructed by it behind the houses of the defendants. The said suit was filed in the year 1993. The written statement therein was filed by the defendants on May 21, 1994. The present application for amendment of the written statement was filed in the year 2001, The facts now sought to be introduced by the amendment of the written statement were well within the knowledge of the defendant-petitioners as it has nowhere been pleaded that the facts now mentioned in the application for amendment of the written statement had come to their knowledge only recently.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that grant of the school building was made by the Executive Engineer (P.W.D.) on January 19, 1969, on the condition that it would provide special education for I.M.A. and N.D.A. students and if special classes were not started, then the grant would stand revoked and the possession would revert back to the Government. According to the learned counsel, special education classes had not started so far and, thus, legally the building has reverted to the Government and the plaintiff-School is no longer in possession thereof under the grant sanctioned by the Government.
4. I do not find any merit in this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As already mentioned above, the present suit was filed in the year 1993 and at no stage of the proceedings, the petitioner-defendants tried to take this plea that the grant deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff conditionally and the said condition had never been fulfilled by the plaintiff. This fact was in the knowledge of the defendants from the very beginning of this case. They had filed the written statement on May 21, 1994. It is not their case that they had come in the knowledge of this fact recently. Moreover, the defendant-petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the grant in favour of the plaintiff.
5. Still further, the suit filed by the plaintiff is only for seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from demolishing the boundary wall raised by it. The allegations made in the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioners, do not have any bearing to the real matter in controversy.
6. In this view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned order
dated May 16, 2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala. The revision
petition, is, accordingly, dismissed.