(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner claiming himself to be the tenant of the respondents over a portion of building comprising of 'Gaddi' and one room on the ground floor in shop No. 3 (private), Mewa Mandi, Amritsar, filed a suit for permanent injunction on July 30, 1995, restraining the defendant, their servants/employees, assigns etc. from interring in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff or from taking forcible possession thereof. After about 8-1/2 years of the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff- petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the plaint. It was inter alia alleged that on November 14, 1985, the defendants had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff and a prayer clause was sought to be added to the effect that the defendants were in illegal possession of the property and were not entitled to retain the same and the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the shop in dispute. The Court fee was also sought to be affixed accordingly. In fact in exact words, the following prayer was made:
(2.) The plaintiff by way of amendment proposed to change the nature of the suit from mandatory injunction into the suit for possession. The prayer for possession was not based on title but was on the basis that the plaintiff was a tenant on the disputed property. He was allegedly dispossessed on November 14, 1985, whereas the application was made more than 8-1/2 years thereafter. Not only the application was highly belated but even a suit for possession in the present case would have been time barred on the date the application for amendment was made. As observed above, the possession was not being sought on the basis of title. The trial Court has also observed that earlier on a Local Commissioner was appointed who gave a report on November 15, 1985, showing the possession of the defendant over the property in dispute. The plaintiff could not be allowed to change the nature of the suit from mandatory injunction to suit for possession.