RUDRAPPA AND ORS. Vs. KASTHURIBA KANYA VIDYALAYA (R)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are defendants in OS No. 255/2011 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2014 allowing I.A. No. 3 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to carryout amendment to the plaint, this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) RESPONDENT herein filed the suit seeking for declaration, declaring that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and for other reliefs. The respondent/Vidyalaya also filed I.A. No. 1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC seeking for temporary injunction. The Trial Court by its order dated 26.10.2011 rejected I.A. No. 1. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed MA No. 18/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arsikre. The said appeal was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court on 11.1.2012. Thereafter, the respondent filed I.A. No. 3 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking for amendment to the plaint contending that after rejection of I.A. No. 1 seeking for temporary injunction, the defendants have illegally encroached 10 guntas of land in Sy. No. 251/P1. The respondent herein wanted to amend the plaint by incorporating the prayer seeking for possession of 10 guntas of land. The defendants filed objections to I.A. No. 3 contending that the application filed by the plaintiff seeking for amendment to the plaint is not acceptable, long after commencement of trial and it will change the cause of action and nature of suit. The suit for injunction cannot be converted into for possession and sought for dismissal of the said application.

(3.) I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and perused the orders impugned and other relevant records.