KISAN AMRUT PAWAR Vs. SARANGDHAR BABAN DHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff's request for amendment of the plaint is rejected by the trial court and hence this revision.

(2.) Originally the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunctions in respect of the suit property. He obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction in this suit but this was subsequently vacated by the trial court. Plaintiff went in appeal but lost it. Thereafter the plaintiff sought to amend his plaint in the trial court so as to include relief of possession instead of relief for injunction and he sought to make suitable relevant amendments in the various clauses of the plant. The amendment application was opposed on behalf of defendants and the learned trial Judge rejected the application on the ground that the entire nature of the suit was going to be changed by this amendment. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision application.

(3.) It is apparent that the order of the trial Court is clearly wrong. The basic structure of the plaint is not at all changed. What is changed is the consequential relief. Instead of asking for injunctions, the plaintiff is now seeking to ask the relief of possession. There is no change whatsoever in the plaint so far as the relief of declaration is concerned and the consequential relief is based mainly on the basis of declaration of ownership. Hence it is mainly a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction or possession are consequential reliefs. If a change is made in the consequential relief, it cannot be said that the nature of the suit is changed. The nature is not at all changed and therefore, the order of the trial Court deserves to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed.