DHARAM CHAND Vs. DUNI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against order dated 22.6.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 128 of 2009. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents restraining them from interfering in any manner in the property comprised in stall No. 92 (104), Chowgan Bazar, Chamba. The suit is being contested by the respondents.

(2.) THE petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for inserting stall No. 92 at some places of the plaint and amendment of agreement dated 9.10.1996. This application was contested by the respondents. The learned Civil Judge on 30.4.2011 partly allowed the application and permitted the petitioner to insert stall No. 92 in the head note, relief and paras 1,3,4 and 5 of the plaint but declined the prayer of the petitioner to amend agreement dated 9.10.1996.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction. On 30.4.2011 petitioner was permitted to insert stall No. 92 in head note, paras 1, 3, 4, and 5 and relief of the plaint. The petitioner moved another application for amendment of para 4 of the plaint that the agreement is for stall No. 92 and not for stall No. 104. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that after the written statement some opportunities were given to the petitioner for filing replication but he did not file the replication. The petitioner could explain his position in the replication, but he opted not to file the replication. It is not the case of the petitioner that the amendment which he has sought by moving second application was not available to him when he moved first application for amendment of the plaint.