PREM CHAND Vs. CHETAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction for handling over possession of the suit property in the year 1998. In the year 2003, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application for amendment of the plaint in which the suit for mandatory injunction is to be converted into suit for possession. The amendments which are sought are as under :-

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that the suit for mandatory injunction was filed in the year 1998. After the evidence was led by both the parties, in the year 2003 the plaintiff has filed an application for amendment of the plaint wherein the entire nature of the suit has been sought to be amended. By amendment of plaint, the plaintiff-respondent wanted to introduce an entirely different case which has prejudiced the defendant- petitioner. Further, no cause of action arose to the plaintiff-respondent to amend the suit and all the grounds were available and were in the knowledge of the plaintiff-respondent at the time of filing of the civil suit. Counsel further submitted that earlier the plaintiff-respondent had accepted that the defendant-petitioner was in permissive possession of the disputed property whereas the proposed amendment changes the stand to forcible dispossession of the plaintiff-respondent which are two contradictory pleas and cannot be allowed to be taken by way of amendment of the plaint. He relied upon Harchand Kaur v. Harinder Singh, 1994(2) RRR 266, Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal, 1998(1) RCR(Civil) 140 and Harbhol Singh v. Pritam Singh, 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 806, to buttress his submissions.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.