PANKAJA AND ORS. Vs. YELLAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel.

(2.) This revision petition is filed challenging the rejection of amendment of plaint in I.A. No. XII. The facts that are not in dispute are that, originally the revision petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction which was amended subsequently seeking for possession of the property for a limited portion. Later, he sought for the relief of declaration of title in respect of the same property, which was opposed by the respondents herein contending that the proposed relief of declaration is time barred and also on the ground that it would change the nature of the suit.

(3.) Learned Judge on appraising the arguments of both the sides, rejected the application holding that it would change the nature of the suit and also on the ground of delay and laches. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed contending that the nature of the suit would not change by the proposed amendment and he has relied upon the decision reported in, 1996 (1) KLJ page 222 in the case of J.C. Rudrasharma v/s. H.K. Subramanyama & others contending that the said amendment is very much necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy between the parties.