BUDH RAM Vs. CHANDER KANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (here -after referred to as the Code) is directed against the order dated 1.7.2000 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu wherebyan application under order 6 Rule 17 of the Code moved by the plaintiff/petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. The relevant and material facts for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff/petitioner has instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents/defendants No. 1 to 8 from constructing any structure on any portion of the suit land, i.e. khasra Nos. 4614 and 4615, situate in Phati Jana, Mauja Nagar, District Kullu. As per the plaint, the plaintiff/petitioner along with proforma respondents/defendants is joint owner in exclusive possession of khasra No.4614 and khasra No.4615 is jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff/petitioner and others. The respondents/defendants No. 1 to 8, however, intended to construct a Pucca structure on the suit land on a valuable portion thereof, hence the suit.

(2.) The respondents/defendants have filed written statement and contested the suit. Before filing replication, the plaintiff moved an application. Under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint. By such amendment the plaintiff/petitioner wants to claim relief of possession by amending the prayer clause and the heading of the plaint. The amendment has been prayed for on the ground that respondents/defendants No.l to 8 on 20.4.1999, i.e. after the institution of the suit, had installed and set up a saw -mill on khasra No.4614 which was earlier installed on khasra No.4617 and, thus, have trespassed into the suit land. The application was resisted by the respondents/defendants and was dismissed by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.