G NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. G MANJULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is clearly of the view that the impugned order dated 05.04.2018, as passed by the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru on I.A. No 6 in O.S. No. 4014 of 2015, rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff/petitioner to amend the plaint, cannot be sustained from any stand-point and is required to be set aside.

(2.) Put it in a nutshell, the relevant aspects of the matter are that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants from interfering with or demolishing the wall in question on the southern side of the schedule ' ' property. The plaintiff/petitioner also made a prayer for temporary injunction against the defendants, but such a prayer was declined by the trial Court by its order on I.A. No. 1, as passed on 09.03.2016. Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner made an application seeking leave to amend the plaint so as to take further pleadings that after the rejection of the I.A. No. 1, the defendants demolished the wall in question on 16.03.2016; and also to insert the prayers for declaration as regards the wall in question and for mandatory injunction for reconstruction of the same.

(3.) By the order impugned, the learned XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, has proceeded to reject the Application (I.A. No. 6) so moved by the plaintiff/petitioner, on a rather strange consideration that when the plaintiff has not challenged the aforesaid order dated 09.02016 rejecting the application for temporary injunction, he cannot seek the proposed amendment!