GURMIT RAM Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenges the order dated 18.1.1999, passed by the trial Court allowing an application filed under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code, which was preferred by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Suit No. 406 of 1996 on 23.12.1996, for declaration to the effect that he is co-owner in respect of the suit property being a co-sharer. The defendant-appellant had filed written statement. Thereafter issues were framed and the case was fixed for 14.9.1988 for evidence of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, who in fact was granted last opportunity to bring his entire evidence at his own responsibility. He failed to produce any evidence and the case was adjourned to 12.11.1998 on payment of Rs. 50/- as costs. It was at this stage that an application for amendment of the suit was filed claiming exclusive ownership in respect of the house in question.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in the earlier suit undoubtedly had made the prayer that he has been a co-sharer along with the defendant- petitioner and defendant-respondent No. 2 in the house in question. He has also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner and defendant-respondent No. 2 from interfering in his peaceful possession over the first floor of the aforementioned house. The prayer made by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in the original plaint reads as under :-