OM PRAKASH DIKSHIT Vs. RAJENDER KUMAR KHANDELWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a consolidated order passed on 22nd December, 1990, the learned Senior Sub Judge disposed of two applications filed by the petitioner, one of which was under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code and the other under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.

(2.) The plaintiff had brought a suit on the ground that he was Pujari of the Sankat Mochan Hanuman Mandir for the last about 50 years and was residing with his family members in a room situated in the precincts of the said Mandir. It was further pleaded that he had been appointed Pujari by the forefathers of the present respondent, who had built this temple. There is an added plea that one other room was built for the purpose of Dharamshala or. for other religious purposes. It is further contended in the same plaint that the land had been acquired by Delhi Administration, but this piece of land was left out for the purpose of the temple, and as such the respondent has no right or interest in the same. Alleging that recently the respondent started constructing a wall in the open space with a view to put an iron gate and also proposed to construct some rooms in the open space, an injunction order was sought against the proposed activity to the effect that the respondent be restrained from enclosing the open space, as well as putting any further construction thereon.

(3.) Another application was filed seeking amendment of the plaint in order to take some additional pleas which are not extracted in the impugned order, but the application was dismissed on the view that there was apparent contradiction in the stand taken by the petitioner in the original plaint vis-a-vis the pleas sought to be introduced by way of amendment and they do not seem to be borne out by any evidence on record and that rather the documents showed to the contrary. Opining that the plaintiff cannot make out an absolutely new cause of action in contradiction to the original claim, the amendment application was dismissed which order has been upheld by the appellate Court.