MOHAN Vs. THAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants/plaintiffs filed two applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 31.3.97 and 14.7.97, By application dated 14.7.97, it was sought to be introduced in the plaint that village Sayar and village Konsakhedi are not different villages, but infact are one village, those are known as Sayar Konsakhedi and in the common parlance these are addressed as Sayar and/or Konsakhedi. By application dated 31.3.97, the plaintiffs wanted to introduce certain further pleadings relating to the conduct of the parties prior to the execution of the sale deed, in the year 1982. They also wanted to make certain further amendment including an amendment in the relief clause to seek an alternative relief. The applications were opposed by the contesting defendants and the trial Court was pleased to reject both the applications.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the amendment proposed in the relief clause as clause (c) could have been permitted by the trial Court because it was an alternative relief claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had come out with the specific case that their land was to be treated as consideration for transfer of the defendant's land in their favour as it was a case of exchange of the agricultural lands. Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act provides that for such a relief, the Court shall permit the plaintiff to make an amendment or make a claim. The amendment relating to the alternative relief deserves to and is accordingly allowed.

(3.) FOR rest of the amendment, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs could not make out a case for bringing the facts by way of an amendment after a period of 15 years from the date of submission of the plaint. The trial Court was justified in rejecting that part of the amendment. The revision to the extent indicated above, is allowed.