GIAN CHAND Vs. MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is instituted against the order dated 13.3.2015 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimla.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff for convenience sake) has filed a suit for declaration that he is owner of building constructed over property comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 141/230, Khasra No. 1823/1594/432 measuring 3 biswas situated at Mohal Rohru, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla and also for declaration that the defendant Gian Chand has deviated from agreement dated 6.10.2003 and has tempered with affidavit dated 30.12.2002 and also for declaration that rent agreements executed by defendant Gian Chand with defendants No. 2 to 12 from 2003 onwards are illegal, wrong and without consent of plaintiff and suit for declaration that status of defendants No. 1 to 12 in the suit property/building is unauthorized. The suit was also filed for recovery of Rs. 5,35,000/ - as rent from Gian Chand and use and occupation charges from defendants No. 2 to 12 in proportion from October, 2003 till 30.9.2012 and thereafter from 1.10.2012 a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ -, i.e. Rs. 50,000/ - per month as use and occupation charges from defendants No. 1 to 12. The suit was also filed for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000/ - on account of damages suffered by plaintiff and his property due to arbitrary, illegal acts, conducts of defendants No. 1 to 12 and suit for possession directing defendants No. 1 to 12 to handover possession of suit property to the plaintiff. Suit was also filed for permanent injunction directing defendants No. 1 to 12 not to further sub -let the suit property to any other person and not to create any kind of encumbrance over the suit property.

(3.) THEIR Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mount Mary Enterprises vs. Jivratna Medi Treat Private Limited, : (2015) 4 SCC 182 have held that amendment application should normally be granted unless by virtue of amendment nature of suit is changed or some prejudice is caused to defendant. In this case, suit was for specific performance and initially the property was valued at Rs. 13,50,000/ - but the market value of the property was actually Rs. 1,20,00,000/ -. Their Lordships have held as under: