DIDAR SINGH Vs. RAMPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application of the plaintiff-petitioner Didar Singh filed under Order VI Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. Aggrieved against the said order, the plaintiff-petitioner has preferred this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Sanjiv Dhiman, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Nanda, Advocate for the respondent.

(3.) A copy of the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code before the trial Court, was shown to me during the course of arguments. A perusal of this application reveals allegations against the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sultanwind that he has taken forcible possession of the premises in dispute. The relief claimed in this application is two-fold. The relief claimed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code is for impleadment of Station House Officer, Police Station, Sultanwind, who is alleged to have taken forcible possession from the plaintiff, as a party. The prayer made under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code is regarding amendment of the plaint to claim the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant No. 2 (i.e. the above-said Station House Officer) to hand over the keys and possession of the shop in question to the plaintiff. The trial Court, vide impugned order, has rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that the remedy available to the plaintiff is to file another civil suit against the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sultanwind to seek possession of the premises in dispute. The trial Judge has, without any sufficient reasons, dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner, which otherwise should have been accepted. When some event takes place during the pendency of the suit which requires amendment regarding relief clause by the plaintiff, the Court should not stay its hands from granting it. The approach of the trial Court is wholly erroneous because remedy is available by way of amendment, as claimed. The plaintiff should not be compelled to go in for another litigation. It will lead to multiplicity of litigation.