RAJARAM NARAYAN Vs. RAJARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially the suit was filed for injunction. Later on an application seeking amendment was made under O.6, R.17, C.P.C. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that during the pendency of the litigation, some constructions have been raised. By way of amendment, mandatory injunction was sought. This prayer was denied. Against this order; the present revision has been filed.

(2.) It may be seen that if something has happened during the pendency of the litigation that can certainly be permitted to be brought on record by way of amendment under O.6, R.17, C.P.C. Such a course was approved by the High Court of Punjab in Puran Chand Sant Lal v.Nitya Nand, AIR 1958 Punj 460. Mr. Justice A.N. Grover (later, Judge of the Supreme Court) observed as under :-

(3.) In this view of the matter, the petitioners are allowed to amend the plaint. It would, however, be open to the defendants to urge that the plea sought to be enforced is barred by limitation.