DALU RAM Vs. HIRPHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some lenght.

(2.) The application of the present petitioners' for striking off unauthorised pleadings, which is stated to be beyond the order of allowing the amendment, was dismissed, is impugned in the present revision petition.

(3.) The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration, in which an application was filed for amendment of the plaint. The applicatton for amendment prayed a limited relief wherein the plaintiffs wanted to amend the plaint by incorporating the relief of possession in addition to the relief of declaration and intended to make consequential amendments in the other paragraphs of the plaint. This application of the plaintiffs, which was opposed by the defendants in the suit, was allowed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 14.5.1994. The bare reading of the order dated 14.5.1994 shows that the amendment which was allowed was very restricted in its nature and scope. The following observations of the trial court would substantiate this fact: