IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 299 of 2007 Date of decision: 1.9.2010 Melo Devi and another Petitioners. Versus Vijay Kumar and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. No. 1, 3, 9 and 10. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 17.09.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No.III, Hamirpur, in so far as by this order the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission to amend the plaint. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit in the trial Court praying that they are exclusive owner in possession of the suit property and that no sale of any joint Khata of the property has taken place in favour of the respondents. It was further alleged in the suit that in case it is found that any such 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 sale has taken place then the possession of the plaintiffs is adverse to that of the defendants and therefore they have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession. This suit was filed on 8.6.1998. It would be pertinent to mention that in this suit it was averred that the defendants had already started partition proceedings in the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sujanpur. This suit was contested, evidence of both the parties was led and when the case was fixed for arguments an application for amendment of the suit was filed. By means of this application the plaintiffs wanted to add Para (4.a.) stating that during pendency of the suit the plaintiffs have come to know that the defendants have initiated proceedings for partition of the suit land before the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Sujanpur. Further by means of this application a fresh prayer was sought to be incorporated to the effect that the defendants be prohibited from getting the suit land partitioned. This application was filed on 17.5.2007. The learned trial Court rejected this application mainly on the ground that it had been filed at a belated stage and moreover no such order restraining the revenue authorities could be passed in view of the ouster of the bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 171 of the Land Revenue Act. 3 3. I have heard Shri Ankush Dass Sood, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the prayer is strictly in terms of Section 41 of the specific relief act and that in case such a prayer is not granted it will lead to multiplicity of the litigation. 5. I am of the considered view that the conduct of the plaintiffs disentitles them to claim any relief. As pointed out above in the plaint itself it had been mentioned that the defendants had initiated partition proceedings in the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade. However, in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 the case which was tried to be made out was that it was only during the pendency of the proceedings that the plaintiffs have come to know about this fact. The plaintiffs have contested the partition proceedings for nine long years. Shri Suneet Goel, learned counsel for the respondents, has produced before me a photo copy of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on a revision petition filed by the plaintiffs herein. This revision petition was instituted on 7.6.2002 and dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) on 26.3.2007. The Financial Commissioner rejected the plea raised by the plaintiffs that question of title was 4 involved. This order has been passed prior to the filing of the application for amendment. This order has been passed in the presence of Kesari Lal (plaintiff No.2), who is also general attorney of his mother Smt. Melo Devi (plaintiff No.1). In the application under Order 6 Rule 17 there is not a whisper about what happened in the partition proceedings; whether the plaintiffs appeared in those partition proceedings or not. No mention of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals) was made. 6. From the aforesaid facts, it is more than apparent that the only purpose of filing the petition was to somehow delay and drag the proceedings and the plaintiffs have been successful in dragging on the case for almost three years in this Court. 7. Keeping in view the conduct of the plaintiffs, I find that no relief can be granted to them. The petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.3,000/-. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 5th October, 2010. In view of the fact that the entire evidence has been led the learned trial Court shall make endeavour to decide the matter as early as possible and in any event not later than 30th November, 2010. 1st September, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™