VIJAY KUMAR Vs. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has assailed an order dated 1. 4. 2005 passed by civil Judge whereby an application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed on the ground that petitioner/plaintiff by way of amendment was trying to change his stand and nature of the suit and withdrawing the admission.

(2.) PETITIONER filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants. He made Block Development Officer and Development commissioner, as defendants No. 1 and 2 and his neighbor as defendant No. 3. In the plaint he alleged that the defendant No. 3 had encroached upon a portion of his land measuring 7' x 5 ' and also fixed a gate in the said encroached portion and has constructed a Chhajja/balcony protruding in the property of the defendant with the result that the present length of the plaintiff wall had become 51' instead of 58' as allotted to him.

(3.) IN the written statement defendants No. 1 and 2 brought it to the notice of the Court that it was the petitioner himself who had encroached upon gaon Sabha land and was trying to make further encroachment. After this fact was brought to the notice of the Court below, the petitioner did not take steps to amend the plaint. The issues were framed on 31. 3. 2001 and the case was fixed for final arguments on 12. 2. 2002. The petitioner thereafter took various adjournments on one ground or the other and filed this application under Order 6 rule 17 only on 8. 4. 2004 whereby he wanted to change the submissions made in his plaint and wanted to withdraw this assertion that defendant No. 3 had encroached upon his land.