MANGU Vs. SARDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by order dated 19.06.2019 whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking relief of possession has been dismissed.

(2.) Initially the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction alleging that she is in possession of the suit property and the defendants are trying to dispossess her. Along with the plaint she has filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. The trial Court has allowed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 against which the defendants preferred an Misc. Appeal in which the order of temporary injunction has been set aside. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 alleging that after order passed by the Additional District Judge she has been dispossessed and the defendants have taken the possession, therefore, she may be permitted to claim the relief of possession. The application was opposed by the defendant. By impugned order dated 19.06.2019 learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff can file a separate suit for relief of possession. Hence the present petition is filed.

(3.) Learned Trial Court has adopted a very hyper technical approach. The multiplicity of the proceedings should be avoided. By claiming the relief of possession in the suit for declaration, the nature of the suit would not be changed. Once the Court has held that the plaintiff can file a separate suit that means a cause of action has accrued in favour of the plaintiff. In order to avoid the multiplicity of the proceedings and the delay in justice the court ought to have permitted the plaintiff to amend the pleading in respect of claim of possession. If the plaintiff fails to seek the relief of possession in the plaint then bar of Section of 34 Specific Relief Act would attract. Hence, the Court has wrongly rejected the application.