PARKASH CHAND Vs. SAT NARAIN MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order of the learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Safidon, dated March 16, 1994, rejecting the application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff and interfering with his peaceful possession as tenant over the shop which was taken on lease from the first defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendants removed the articles from the shop and also removed the gate and fixed some bricks in the shop on January 30, 1994 when he was away. By way of amendment the plaintiff is seeking possession and mandatory injunction. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) The application has been filed immediately after filing the plaint. There cannot be any dispute that the amendment should be liberally allowed. The suit was filed on February 1, 1994 and the application was filed immediately, thereafter and the impugned order was passed on 16.4.1994. The cause of action will not change by allowing the amendment. No limitation is also involved. All the necessary facts which entitle the plaintiff to obtain the relief have been made in the original plaint itself Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the defendants by allowing the application for amendment. It is clearly stated in the plaint which has been originally filed that in the absence of the plaintiff, the defendants removed all his belongings and put up bricks in the shop and removed the gate. Whether the defendants have actually taken the possession of the shop on 30.1.1994 and whether it amounts to dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit premises is a matter to be decided in the suit after consideration of the ev'dence adduced by both the parties. Simply because there is an omission to make a prayer in the original plaint filed on 1.2.1994 to seek the relief of mandatory injunction, it does not deprive him from seeking those reliefs by way of amendment on the basis of the same set of facts which have already found mention in the plaint. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the Trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it.