ZAREENA Vs. MOHAMED HANEEF; RAO BAHADUR B P; DAVANAM CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD; SHOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD; CORPORATION OF CITY OF BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff praying to quash the impugned order dated 21.11.2014 passed in O.S.3355/2007 by the XL Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, who rejected the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, which is produced at Annexure-G.

(2.) Petitioner-Plaintiff filed the suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the respondentsdefendants or anyone acting on their behalf from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property or in any way carry on any excavation work by encroaching upon the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and to restrain defendants Nos.1 to 4 from creating any clandestine documents such as joint development agreement, lease mortgage, sale or otherwise in respect of the property and to restrain the defendant No.5 from issuing sanctioned plan and licence in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4 in respect of property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. The petitioner herein has also filed an amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 read with 151 of CPC praying the Court to permit the petitioner to add paragraphs 18A, 18B, 18C and 18D after paragraph No.18, the proposed amendment, which is mentioned in the application. In the prayer column also the petitioner has sought to add paragraphs (a1) for declaration of title declaring that the plaintiff and children Neha, Anjum and Muddasir Ahmed are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, (a2) for consequential relief of possession directing defendant Nos.1 to 4 to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, failing which the possession of the property be handed over through the process of the Court, (a3) for mandatory injunction directing demolition and removal of the construction put up by defendant Nos.1 to 4 on the suit schedule property. The said application is also supported by the affidavit of the GPA Holder of the plaintiff, wherein it is stated that the averments made in the plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel of the affidavit that the plaintiff is the absolute owner in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and defendant Nos.1 to 4 do not have any manner of right, title and interest or possession over the same. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 attempted to illegally and highhandedly encroach and trespass upon the suit schedule property in collusion with defendant No.5 and as such, plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit. In the amendment application, there is also pleading that recently a few weeks back taking advantage of the long pendency of the matter and various subsequent events that have transpired during the pendency of the above suit subsequent to its institution, in particular, the fact that the suit schedule property has fallen vacant, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have no manner of right, title interest or possession over the suit schedule property or any portion thereof, have illegally and highhandedly trespassed and encroached upon the suit schedule property and are illegally attempting to put up illegal and unauthorized construction thereon. It is further mentioned that in view of the fact that proposed amendment is necessitated on account of additional subsequent events and plaintiff was not in a position to put forth these pleadings before commencement of trial and hence, prays to allow the application.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff, the arguments of learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and also the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.3.