JASRATH SINGH Vs. KAMRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution petitioner has challenged the order dated 19/04/2012, whereby the Court below has allowed the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C.

(2.) PLAINTIFF filed a suit, which was registered as case No. 101-A/2006. The suit was filed for permanent injunction. It was prayed in the said suit that plaintiff be declared in possession in survey No. 205 village Dhamarahi. Further declaration is prayed that the defendants, agents or relatives have no right and they be restrained from creating any hindrance on the said survey number. An application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C Annexure-P/4 is filed on 10/02/2012 whereas the suit was filed on 11/08/2006. It is stated in the application Annexure-P/4 that during pendency of the suit, in the month of May, 2011 on the land in question, the defendants have illegally and forcibly entered and constructed a pakka room, boundary wall etc. On the basis of the subsequent event and changed circumstances, it was prayed that in lieu of "permanent injunction", suit may be treated as a suit for "declaration and restoration of possession". The same was opposed by the other side. However, the Court below has allowed the said application by impugned order on the ground that subsequent event permits the plaintiff to amend the suit.

(3.) SHRI Arshand Ali learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the order and relied upon certain judgments. He submits that in certain circumstances, even if nature of suit is changed, the amendment can be allowed. He submits that basic purpose to permit amendment is to minimize the litigation, avoid multiplicity of the litigation and to ensure complete justice between the parties. He submits that the plaintiff was dispossessed during pendency of the suit in May, 2011 and therefore in the interest of justice, the Court below has allowed the application, which is not illegal in any manner.