HARISINGH BAL Vs. PREMNARAYAN RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the impugned orders in these matters are arising out of same civil suit, with the consent of parties, matters were analogously heard and decided by this common order.

(2.) Plaintiff initially filed a suit for permanent injunction. The court below passed injunction order dated 3.8.2011. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 26.2.2013. The said application was disallowed by the court below by order dated 30.7.2013. Thereafter, petitioner/plaintiff filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 2.9.2013. The respondents filed their reply. This application is also rejected by impugned order dated 28.1.2014. The application is rejected on the ground that similar amendment application stood rejected on 30.7.2013. In absence of challenge to said order, it had attained finality. Second amendment application is an after thought. No due diligence is shown by the plaintiff in filing the application belatedly. If the application for amendment is allowed, the matter will be required to be reopened from earlier stage. It may even change the nature of the suit.

(3.) Shri CP Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, by taking this court to averments of amendment application dated 2.9.2013 contended that it is specifically pleaded that the petitioner visited the spot on 24.2.2013 and then came to know that certain portion of his land on which injunction is prevailing is encroached by the other side. His first application was rejected on technical ground. The sole reason was for not mentioning the description/survey numbers of the land. The second application is filed on the basis of subsequent event, i.e., knowledge of encroachment on 24.2.2013. Thus, due diligence was shown and such amendment should not have been disallowed on technical ground. He relied on certain judgments.