CHHINDO Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner has a grievance with the turning down of the impugned amendment plea by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.9.2009. The suit, as originally filed, was for a declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the former on the property in suit. It was in the course of the trial that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a plea for amendment to convert the said suit into a suit for possession alongwith relief of mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendants to hand over the possession of the premises in suit to the former. The averment, in the context, was that the defendants-respondents had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff-petitioner on 11.6.2007.

(2.) The learned Trial Court noticed that issues in the case has been framed on 2.6.2000 and that even after the alleged occurrence dated 11.6.2007, the plaintiff-petitioner had already availed of as many as 5-6 opportunities to conclude his evidence and had also been afforded last opportunity to conclude the evidence on 24.9.2008, on which date the impugned application came to be filed. The learned Trial Court felt that the impugned application had been filed at belated stage and only to prolong the litigation. For the very reasons noticed by the learned Trial Court, I find myself in complete agreement with the view obtained by the learned Trial Court and also the reasoning recorded in support thereof. (If the allegation of impugned dispossession on 11.6.2007 was factually correct, there is no reason why the petitioenr herein would not have a mention thereof till 24.9.2008) The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.