PARAMJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB WAKF BOARD, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 31/7/2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the lower appellate Court vide which respondent/plaintiff's application under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been allowed.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the property shown in site plan attached with the plaint, and for recovery of charges for illegal use and occupation of the said property measuring about 478 sq. yards situated at Samana, District Patiala. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dtd. 19/8/2014 (Annexure P-4), holding that plaintiff failed to prove defendant's possession over khasra No.287 and that the suit property was a part of it. It was also held that so far as the question of possession was concerned, the plaintiff failed to prove on record any site plan of the 478 sq.yards property,marked as ABCDEA, alleged to be in possession of the defendant. In the head note of the plaint, no name of any person having the adjoining property or the nature of the adjoining property, had been been mentioned. The trial Court further held, when the defendant had taken specific stand that property marked as ABCDEA did not fall in khasra No.287; instead, the suit property was part of khasra No.265, the plaintiff was required to prove that suit property formed part of khasra No.287.

(3.) It was after dismissal of the suit in question by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dtd. 19/8/2014, that the respondent/plaintiff filed the application in question seeking amendment of the plaint. The amendment was sought on the ground that boundaries of the suit property could not be explained properly due to oversight, and, therefore, amendment to the head note as well as prayer clause of the plaint was required to mention the details of the persons who owned the adjoining property, which would not change nature of the case.