ANIL KUMAR Vs. RAJNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the order dtd. 12/6/2023, vide which the application for seeking amendment filed by the respondent (plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) was allowed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction for restraining the defendant from dismantling/uprooting the old dilapidated house of the plaintiff existing over the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 982/1275, bearing Khasra No. 738, measuring 2/7/0 bighas, situated in Mohal and Fati Dhalpur, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). It was asserted that Ram Nath, father of the parties, was the absolute owner in possession of an old 2' storeyed slate-roofed house along with Khal/Courtyard. He bequeathed the same to the plaintiff through a registered Will dtd. 2/2/1996. The plaintiff is in possession of the house. She is residing in her matrimonial home at Shangri Bag. The house became dilapidated. The defendant was residing separately from his father. He was given one house standing over the Abadi land measuring 11 ft. in length and 30 ft. in breadth along with the toilet, measuring 8 ft. in length and 9 ft. in breadth at Ghangheri, Upper Sultanpur, Fati Dhalpur, Kullu. The defendant started uprooting and dismantling the house existing over the suit land. He was requested not to do so but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

(3.) When the matter was listed for filing the written statement, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Sec. 151 of CPC asserting that the defendant uprooted the old house during the pendency of the suit and raised six RCC Pillars on the suit land. She had approached Patwari, Patwar Circle Dhalpur to ascertain the Khasra number and she was verbally informed that her house existed on Khasra No. 738. She subsequently came to know that her house exists on Khasra No. 746, comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 1787 min/2278 min, measuring 0/7/0 bigha in Mohal and Fati Dhalpur and not on the suit land. This fact came to the notice of the plaintiff when the Local Commissioner visited the spot with Kanungo and Patwari and demarcated the land. Hence, it has become necessary to incorporate the exact Khasra number and to seek the relief of demolition of the construction so raised by the defendant.