AMANPURI Vs. SOHAN LAL MITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Kovid Bhatt, the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that the defendant be restrained from interfering in his possession from making any construction over the plot No. 245/1. The defendant resisted the suit and came forward with a defence that the construction so raised by the defendant is in plot No. 245/3. Based on such admission, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. praying that the defendant may also be restrained from raising any construction on plot No. 245/3. Since the plaintiff is also a recorded tenure holder of this plot. This application was rejected by the trial court which was affirmed by the revisional court. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is settled law that a liberal approach should be adopted by the trial court in considering the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C., especially, where the controversy involved between the parties could be finally adjudicated. Take another view in the matter, namely, that nothing would have stopped the plaintiff in filing another suit for a similar injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering in possession or in making construction in plot No. 245/3. Such suit, if any, would have been within the period of limitation. Consequently, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, especially, when the parties are the same and the dispute is also the same, the Court below was not justified in rejecting the amendment application.