LAXMAN SINGH Vs. HUKUM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/ plaintiff has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2012, passed by 1st Civil Judge, Class-II Raisen in Regular Civil Suit No. 9-A/2011, whereby his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the suit to enlarge the scope of the matter with additional prayer to issue perpetual injunction against the respondents including the State of Madhya Pradesh also with respect of the disputed land with the averments that the petitioner has perfected the right of easement on the same has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner's counsel after taking me through the papers placed on record along with the impugned order argued that initially the suit was filed for perpetual injunction against the respondent No. 1 to 7 by impleading the respondent No. 8/ State of Madhya Pradesh, as formal party. But in pendency of the suit on arising the occasion when such authorities have not taken any step to stop the construction, which was started and carried out by the respondent No. 1 to 7 on the disputed land then the impugned application was moved on the strength of the alleged perfected right of easement over the disputed land of the State for issuing perpetual injunction against the respondents including the State of Madhya Pradesh also. In such premises he also said that the facts of the proposed amendment being subsequent event of the case ought to have been allowed by the trial Court but the same has been dismissed under the wrong premises. He also placed his reliance in the matter of Revajeetu Buklders (sic: Builders) and Developers Vs. Narayanswamy and sons and others, 2009 10 SCC 84. In continuation he said that even in the lack of statutory notice of Section 80 of CPC by allowing the prayer the trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to prosecute the impugned suit against the respondent No.8, the State of Madhya Pradesh for grant of the relief of perpetual injunction and prayed for allowing his application by setting aside the impugned order by admitting and allowing this petition.

(3.) Shri A.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 7, by justifying the impugned order said that same being based on proper appreciation of factual matrix of the matter and the existing legal position, does not require any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of this petition.