SURAJDEEN Vs. RAMLAL BAHELIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have assailed the order dated 2-9-05 by Third Civil Judge, class I, Rewa in C. S. No. 47-A/05 by which petitioners' application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment in the plaint was rejected.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the amendment as prayed by the petitioners was based on subsequent events. During the pendency of the suit, respondents dispossessed the petitioners by raising a construction over the disputed land. Petitioner initially filed a suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction against the respondents. But the prayer of temporary injunction, during the pendency of this suit was rejected by the Court. Thereafter when the petitioners were dispossessed, petitioners filed an application seeking amendment of relief of declaration of title, possession and mesne profit. The Trial Court rejected the aforesaid application mainly on the ground that the proposed amendment shall change the nature of the suit and this will cause prejudice to the other side, while the factual position is that this amendment was based on subsequent events occurred after filing of the suit, the proposed amendment was necessary for just decision of this suit.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel lor the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and cause serious prejudice to the respondents. The suit was only for issuance of perpetual injunction and now the petitioners want to change the nature of the suit by converting such suit for declaration, possession and mesne profit. It is submitted that the Trial Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners, which order needs no interference by this Court. Reliance is placed by the respondents to three judgments of this Court in Hukumchand (Dead)Through L. Rs. Vs. Mahantramcharan Dass Chela and others, 2001 (4) M. P. H. T. 170, Smt. Hansa Devi Sahu Vs. Bachchalal Jaisinghani and another, 2001 (5)M. P. H. T. 116 and Mangilai Vs. Dambarlal, 2007 (4) M. P. L. J. 200 = 2008 (1)M. P. H. T. 68, and submitted that this petition may be dismissed.