KANIYALAL CHASNDULAL GANESHWALA Vs. ZUBEDABIBI GULAM AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of law and fact arise in these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 12327 of 2008 is filed by the petitioner under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Hansoth dated 2-8-2008 below Exh. 73 in Regular Civil Suit No. 33 of 2005 in dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner-original plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding the prayer of possession with respect to the disputed land in question.

(3.) ALL the aforesaid suits are filed by the respective petitioner-original plaintiff for specific performance of respective agreement to sell/satakhat. It appears that in the aforesaid suits, prayer with respect to possession was not sought, and therefore, the respective petitioner-original plaintiff submitted respective applications under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure permitting them to amend the plaint by adding the prayer with respect to possession. It appears that the said amendment was sought considering Sec. 22 of the Specific Relief act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). All the aforesaid applications were opposed on the ground that the respective suits were filed in the year 2005 and the respective applications for amendment have been submitted after a period of almost 21/2 years and no cause has been shown why such applications have been submitted belatedly. The learned Judge dismissed the aforesaid applications by observing that at the time when the respective suits were filed, the respective petitioner-original plaintiff was aware of the fact that the respondents-original defendants are in possession of the land in question and at that time the respective petitioner-original plaintiff could have prayed for relief of possession, and therefore, if now the respective petitioner-original plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint, it will change the nature of the suit and on considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Anr. v. Keshavprakashdasji N. and Ors. , reported in 2007 (3) GLR 1872 (SC), the learned trial Court by impugned orders dismissed the aforesaid applications by not permitting the respective petitioner-original plaintiff to amend the plaint by amending the prayer clause for possession. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the respective applications for amendment of the plaint, the respective petitioner-original plaintiff has preferred the present Special Civil Applications under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.