ROSHAN LAL Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10th February 2005 passed by trial court whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the suit was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts reveal that the petitioner was allotted a DDA Flat no. 001A/1/(Eu), Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi. This flat was of category where a multi-purpose room was not there. The petitioner occupied multi-purpose room of another flat and filed a suit for permanent injunction on 12th November 1982 against respondents praying for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain respondents from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from the multipurpose room which was part of respondents flat but occupied by petitioner. The petitioner was granted an ex parte interim injunction thereby restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff/petitioner from the multipurpose room. The respondent no.3 was added as a party later, on an application made on his behalf as he had entered into an agreement to sell in respect of flat no. IA/1 (E.U.), Ashok Vihar, with respondents no.1 and 2. Respondent no.4 was added as a party on 3rd January 1995 as a subsequent attorney holder under an agreement to sell dated 12th September, 1991.

(3.) IT is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that since sufficient long time had expired and the revision petition was not heard, the petitioner was advised that in case the relief of possession was not claimed within the period of limitation, the petitioner would lose the right to seek possession. So, the petitioner moved an application before the trial court seeking amendment of the plaint so as to seek relief of possession. This application was dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order and the trial court also observed that since the suit was filed by the petitioner for permanent injunction against dispossession and the petitioner had already been dispossessed, the suit itself became infructuous and he listed the matter for arguments on this issue. The petitioner then moved this Court by way of present petition.