AJMER SINGH Vs. GIRDHALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The crux of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, initially petitioner-plaintiff Ajmer Singh son of Ram Kishan (for brevity "the plaintiff"), claiming himself to be in possession filed the civil suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Girdhala and others-respondents-defendants (for short "the defendants") from interfering in his possession of the property in dispute. The defendants contested the suit, stoutly denied the possession of the plaintiff and prayed for dismissal of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed the application for amendment of the plaint, which was dismissed by the trial Judge by virtue of impugned order dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure P-6).

(2.) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.