KRISHNA BHATT Vs. MUKUNDA PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed by the plaintiff, against the order of the learned Mimsiff refusing one of three amendments sought for by him to be made to the plaint. From a reading of the plaint, it is clear that the essential dispute between the parties is about the correct location of the boundary separating their properties. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has wrongfully cut and removed certain trees which stood on the boundary line which

(2.) There is also the complaint that the extention attempted to be made by the defendant to his own building is an encroachment on the plaint property. On the basis of these allegations, plaintiff has brought the suit for recovery of damages on account of the cutting of the trees by the defendant and also to restrain him by an injunction from cutting more trees from the boundary line and also from proceeding with the extension of his building so as to encroach into the plaintiff's property.

(3.) From the report submitted by the Commissioner deputed in this case, it was seen that the eaves of the defendant's building was extending into plaintiff's property. Thereupon plaintiff wanted to have this plaint amended by adding a prayer that the defendant should be directed to remove the eaves extending in to the plaintiff's property. Learned Munsiff disallowed the prayer for such an amendment.