JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is directed against the order arising out of rejection of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) The plaintiff -respondent instituted a suit for permanent injunction and for cancellation of exparte decree passed in Original Suit No.185 of 2006. The applicant -defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and counter claim. The relief sought in the counter claim was for mandatory injunction against the plaintiff -respondent directing them to vacate a portion of property described along with the counter claim and to deliver possession. During trial as many as 11 issues were framed by the trial court and upon issue nos. 2,3, 11 and 12 being decided, at the stage of judgement, applicant moved an application (30 - Ga) under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the counter claim. The amendment sought was to amend relief 'A' to the counter claim by substituting "mandatory injunction" by "possession".

(3.) The courts below rejected the application in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 holding that the amendment was sought at the stage of decision of the suit, the impugned order would further note that the applicant -defendant has already sought a relief for possession by way of mandatory injunction, therefore, the amendment is not required at this stage. Further, no reason was assigned as to why the amendment is being sought at the belated stage after trial has concluded.