KAURI DEVI Vs. BADO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner impugns the order dated 23.5.2013 by which an amendment to the plaint has been disallowed. The petitioner had filed a declaratory suit along with a prayer for injunction and setting aside of a sale deed. The suit was preferred in the year 2005 and continued for seven long years when the petitioner moved an application alleging that she was dispossessed from the suit property in the year 2012 and sought an amendment to that effect. The learned trial Court declines such a prayer which is now the cause of grievance to the petitioner.

(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment sought for by her was merely clarificatory in nature and was intended to incorporate subsequent events which had taken place. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of D.A.V. College Hoshiarpur Society Hoshiarpur vs. Sarvada Nand Anglo Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Managing Committee, : AIR 1967 Punjab 501, D.A.V. College Hoshiarpur Society Hoshiarpur vs. Sarvada Nand Anglo Sanskrit Higher Secondary School, Managing Committee, : AIR 1972 Punjab and Haryana 245, Taranjit Kaur and others vs. Navneet Kaur and others, : 2006 (2) HRR 118 and Jeet Singh alias Ranjit Singh vs. Baboo Singh (died) represented through his LRs, : 1997(3) RCR (Civil) 676.

(3.) IN view of this, I am of the considered view that the amendment was totally vague and, thus, was rightly declined by the Court. It is imperative for the person who alleges that he or she has been dispossessed during the pendency of a suit to plead as to how and when such an incident took place.