ARDEE BUSINESS CENTRE PVT. LTD. Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing order dated 22.2.2005 passed by Civil judge (Junior Division) Gurgaon partially dismissing its application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., in the civil suit no. 360 of 1999 dated 30.9.1999. The learned Civil Judge has allowed the amendments of typographical error and has rejected the other amendments as unnecessary and malafide.

(2.) THE skeleton facts necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the plaintiff -petitioner filed civil suit, No. 360/1999 for a declaration alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant -respondent claiming that it is absolute owner in possession of the suit land, A further prayer was made restraining the defendant -respondent from encroaching upon the suit land or any part thereof. An injunction was sought restraining the defendant -respondent from raising any construction on any part of the land. On 29.8.1999, the Civil Judge had granted ad interim injunction against the defendant -respondent restraining him from raising any construction on khasra No. 709/2. It was alleged that despite the ad interim injunction the defendant -respondent had started raising boundary walls forcibly and illegally which resulted in filing an application for appointment of a Local Commissioner on 5.10.1999. Accordingly, the Local Commissioner was appointed who submitted his report after spot inspection on 16.10.1999. The ad interim injunction issued on 28.9.1999 was continued and keeping in view the report of the Local Commissioner dated 4.10.2000 and the statements of the parties, status quo was ordered to be maintained. When the evidence of the plaintiff petitioner was in progress and the Civil Judge had granted last opportunity on 13.11.2003 posting the case for 10.2.2004. The plaintiff petitioner did not produce any evidence and requested for adjournment on the pretext that there were chances of compromise. No compromise took place and again last opportunity for concluding the evidence of the plaintiff petitioner was granted posting the case for 20.5.2004. However, instead of producing the evidence the plaintiff petitioner on the aforementioned date filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. in which prayer was made for incorporating the numerous amendments in the plaint. The first kind of amendment sought to be incorporated is with regard to the subsequent developments in the form of raising construction after the submission of the report of Local Commissioner on 16.10.1999. The details of amendment have been given in para 3 of the impugned order. The other type of amendment sought to be incorporated is in the nature of typographical mistakes. The details of these typographical mistakes have been given in para 4 of the impugned order. The third type of amendment sought is to have relief of mandatory injunction incorporated for demolishing the construction raised after the submission of the Local Commissioner's report. The Civil Judge after issuing notice and hearing arguments dismissed the application by observing as under: -

(3.) FOR the reasons stated above this petition fails and the same is dismissed.