DORAI RAJU Vs. M JAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 1443 of 1996 seeking for a decree of permanent injunction. In view of subsequent events an application under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking amendment to the prayer was sought to be made in the plaint. On contest the Trial Court by the impugned order allowed the application for amendment. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed the present petition.

(2.) Sri M.H. Haneef, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order allowing the amendment is bad in law and liable to be interfered with. He contends that the amendment sought for would change the Mature of the suit and also that the prayer for declaration which has been barred by limitation, is sought for in the amendment. He, therefore, contends that when a suit for declaration has been barred by limitation the same could not be sought for, in the guise of an application for amendment. In support of his contentions he relies on the judgment in the case of Additional District Magistrate (City), Agra Vs. Praabhakar Chaturvedi and Another, AIR 1996 SC 2359: (1996)2 SCC 12: 1996 SCC (L and S) 393: 1996-1-LLJ-811 (SC) and in the case of Vidyabai and Others Vs. Pad Imalatha and Another AIR 2009 SC 1433 : (2009)2 SCC 409: 2009 AIR SCW 899: [2009(1) ICC (S.C.) 1] He contends that once a trial has commenced no amendment could he allowed. He submits that the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed and the matter is set down for the evidence of the defendant.

(3.) Sri Aravind Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents defends the impugned order. He submits that in view of the subsequent events including that of dispossessing him from the schedule premises is concerned lie was compelled to make the present application. He contends that in view of the subsequent events that have taken place there is no delay in making the said application. In support whereof he relies on the decision in the case of Parkaja and Another Vs. Yellappa (since dead) by L.Rs and Others, AIR 2004 SC 4102 (2004) SCC 415: 2004 AIR SCW 4522 : [2004(4) ICC (S.C.) 281] and in the case of' Sarnlrath Kumar Vs. Ayyakannu and Another; ILR 2002 Kar: 5055 (SC): AIR 2002 SC 3369: (2002) 7 SCC 559 : [2002(4) ICC (S.C.) 859].