SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision filed by the plaintiffs, is directed against the orders dated 17.2.1997 and 2.5.1997 in Civil Suit No. 594-A of 1995, passed by the Fourth Civil Judge, Class II, Bilaspur.

(2.) THE applicants claim that they are owners of the suit land shown in red colour in the plaint map. It is part of Khasra No. 763/2 situate in Bilaspur mouza Juna Bilaspur. The Khasra No. 763 was subdivided into three parts. The suit land is remembered as Khasra No. 7632/Ka. Its area is 1.60 acres. Khasra No. 763/2 Gha belonged to Ratan Lal. Its area is 0.60 acres. It is contiguous to the plot of the applicants on the eastern side as per plaint map. The plaint map filed by the applicant showed Khasra No. 763/2 Kha on the southern side of the suit land. It was claimed that there is no piece of land numbered as 763/2 Gha. The applicants claimed that they came to know that non-applicants were purchasing from a third party two pieces of land marked 763/2 Aa and 763/2 GH area 0.26 acres, from a news paper advertisement. Since they approached that their land was being sold as there was no such land on the spot and, therefore, served a notice to the non-applicants No. 3 and 4 the 'vendors' of the non-applicant No. 1 and 2 not to sell their land. Thereafter they filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the non-applicants No. 1 to 4 from interfering with the possession of the applicants.

(3.) THE Civil Revision No. 1058/97 is primarily directed against the order of refusal to allow the amendment on 17.2.97 and 2.5.97. There were two applications. It may be remembered that suit was filed in the year 1987. The first amendment application was filed on 14.1.97 (Annexure A-1). The trial Court by order dated 17.2.97 partially allowed the amendment but refused to convert the suit for permanent injunction into the suit for possession in the alternative in respect of 0.52 acres of land asserted by non-applicants to be in their possession. In order to understand the nature of amendment sought in the plaint, it is necessary to summarise it in a few words. The applicants wanted to say that there was no land like 763/2 Gha and therefore, the land purchased by non-applicants area 0.52 acres of land as shown in the map of the non-applicants would be part of Khasra No. 763/2 Ka. They claimed to be in possession of entire 763/2 Ka and claimed permanent injunction. The applicants in the alternative wanted possession of the land if it was found that the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 had encroached upon 763/2 Ka.