SAMA Vs. MOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF applicant has directed this revision against the order dated 8.5.2001 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Petlawad, District Jhabua in CS 19 A/96 thereby rejecting the application filed on behalf of the applicant plaintiff seeking amendments in the plaint.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are : That originally the plaintiff applicant has filed a suit against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction with regard to the land in dispute and also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction against the respondents. Learned trial Court, by order dated 19.9.2000, dismissed the application filed on behalf of the applicant for grant of temporary injunction under O.39. Rr 1 and 2, CPC on the finding that the plaintiff applicant is not found in possession of the disputed land.

(3.) CONSIDERING the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it emerged that the proposed amendment was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that if such amendment is allowed, then it will be barred by law of limitation and for this purpose, the trial Court has mentioned in its order that in other C.S. 4 A/88 (Champabai, v. Sama) the applicant plaintiff has made some admissions with regard to the possession of the non applicants on the disputed land and in view of the aforesaid admission, the amendment, if allowed, will be barred by limitation.