RATNA SHRIVASTAV Vs. M M BHARGAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 8.3.2010 by 6th Civil Judge Class-1, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.64-A/2009 between the parties by which an application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 6 rule 17 CPC was allowed and the respondent/plaintiff was permitted to amend relief clause by inserting following relief:-

(2.) THE petitioner assailed the order on the following grounds:-

(3.) THE plaintiff has prayed amendment in relief clause in which he has sought amendment that the vacant possession after demolition of the construction' be permitted to be inserted in para 14(b). In para 14(b) of the relief clause, the plaintiff had already sought relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants for restraining them to raise illegal construction and to restore the possession of the plot by issuance of mandatory injunction. A specific relief was prayed by the plaintiff for the mandatory injunction in this regard and by way of amendment, aforesaid relief has been made specifically for restoring possession of the plot in favour of the plaintiff by removing the construction raised by the defendants. Though it is disputed by the defendants that construction was raised during pendency of the suit, as before filing of the suit it was complete, while the averments in the application are that this construction was raised by the defendants during pendency of the suit. However, it is a matter of evidence which is to be decided by the trial Court after recording evidence of the parties.