SHAM KUMAR KOHLI Vs. ASHOK TANDON AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Contitution of India for quashing of impugned order dated 19.9.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, whereby, an application moved by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the petition are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the property bearing No. 86-87 D measuring 150 square yards situated at Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants themselves through their agents, attorneys from interfering into his peaceful possession. Written statement to the suit was filed by the respondents. Thereafter the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint on the ground that in the headnote as well as in the prayer clause of the plaint before the words "86-87 D", the word "85-D" be allowed to be added and before the word "owner", the word "real" be allowed to be added and after the word "Ludhiana", the following lines be allowed to be added:-

(3.) And after the words "except in due course of law", the following lines be allowed to be added:-