AMARJIT SINGH Vs. SARABJIT KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petition impugning the order dated 27.9.2013 passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by him for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein was a tenant in property in question under Harpreet Singh Bhatia. He sold the same to the respondents apprehending that respondents are out to demolish the same by using unfair means to evict the petitioner. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from demolishing or damaging any part of the suit property. The suit was filed on 30.8.2013. When it was listed before the court, without there being any notice, defendant No.1-Sarabjit Kaur appeared through her counsel and stated that before passing order on the application filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, defendant No.1 be permitted to file written statement and submit documents. The case was adjourned to 6.9.2013. Taking benefit of that and also holidays in between, the respondents started demolishing the building on 31.8.2013 and had been successful in their mission. Partially, a complaint was also made by the petitioner to the police, which was entered as DDR No.21 dated 1.9.2013. Even photographs were also taken. Immediately on the next working day i.e. 2.9.2013, application was filed before the court bringing all the facts on record. Notice of the application was given to the defendants for the next day i.e. 3.9.2013. The case was again adjourned on the request of the defendants. On the other hand, they continued in their illegal design of demolishing the property. On the next date of hearing fixed i.e. 6.9.2013, the petitioner filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the plaint by bringing additional facts on record, which transpired after the filing of the suit and further for the issuance of mandatory injunction to the defendants to restore the property in its original position or permit the petitioner/plaintiff to do the needful at the cost of the defendants.

(2.) The application was wrongly declined merely on the ground that the nature of the suit will change. The reason assigned is erroneous. The trial is yet to commence, as on the date, when the application for amendment was filed, even the written statement had not been filed by the defendants. In support of his plea, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman and another v. Mohd. Ruldu and others, 2012 4 CivCC 584 and judgments of this Court in Kailash and another v. Yasina and others, 2010 1 CivCC 579 and Gurmail Singh @ Kaka Singh v. Ran Singh and others, 2012 3 CivCC 325 .

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the stage at which the application for amendment was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff even the written statement had not been filed by the defendants. However, he disputed the fact that there was not any demolition carried out by the respondents after the filing of the suit. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.