KIRPAL SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 12.9.2006, whereby an application filed by the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint, was declined. The learned trial Court has reproduced the amendment sought for in extenso in the order passed, as well as given the detailed reasons to decline the same. However, for the purposes of the present revision, suffice it to say that the plaintiffs have mainly sought two fold amendments; firstly, to raise a plea of adverse possession and secondly, that possession has not been delivered to the decree holder in pursuance of the decree for specific performance passed in favour of the defendants.

(2.) The plaintiffs have filed the suit for injunction on the plea that they have purchased the suit land vide sale deeds dated 22.11.1989 and 22.12.1989, whereas defendant No.3 has relied upon a decree for specific performance dated 4.3.1986 on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 30.11.1977. In pursuance of the said decree, the sale deed has been executed on 20.3.1990. The present suit for injunction was filed on 14.5.1992. CR No. 5562 of 2006 (Page numbers)

(3.) The amendment sought so as to raise a plea of adverse possession has been rightly declined by the learned trial Court as the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to raise a plea of adverse possession after tagging the period during which their suit for injunction was pending before the trial Court. Prior thereto the possession of the plaintiffs is only for a period of less than 3 years and the said period is not relevant to raise a plea of adverse possession. Therefore, the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, whereby the amendment sought so as to raise a plea of adverse possession has been declined.