KANHYA LAL Vs. NATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY the fact relevant to determine the question involved in this revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for mandatory injunction on the basis of title in the year 1980. Apart from various other pleas, the defendants contended that the suit for injunction and declaration simpliciter was not maintainable as they are in possession of the premises in dispute. During the pendency of the trial, the plaint was amended. However, the relief claimed was never changed. The defendants still have to lead their evidence. The trial is at the stage of evidence.

(2.) THE respondents sought the withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action as the suit suffered from a formal defect. The application was allowed inter alia holding that the plaintiffs would not get the desired relief of possession in the present suit though it was observed by the learned Sub-Judge that there was no defect the form of the suit.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Ashok Kumar v. Smt. Kala Devi and others, 1984 PLJ 308; Dhandar Singh and others v. Nirajan Kaur and others, 1986 PLJ 339; Piara Ram and another v. Ganesh Dass and others, AIR 1967 Punjab 237; K. Chinna Vatra Thevar v. S. Vaira Thevar, AIR 1983 Madras 160; Amrik Singh v. Pritam Singh and others, 1985(2) Punjab Law Reporter 44 and Raghbir Kaur v. Gurmej Singh, 1985(1) Punjab Law Reporter 266.