BUDHIA Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This purports to be an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u), Civil P. C., against an order of remand made by the learned District Judge of Mahasu under Order 41, Rule 23, read with Section 151, Civil P. C. For reasons stated in this Court's order dated 19-5-1955, it was held that the present appeal was incompetent. Consequently, at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, the memorandum of appeal was treated as a revision petition and admitted on the point that the lower appellate Court had exercised its jurisdiction with material irregularity in permitting the plaintiffs to amend the plaint, i.e. by adding a prayer for possession.

(2.) Yesterday, I heard learned counsel for the parties. As I shall show presently, the petition cannot succeed.

(3.) Mr. Thakar Das for the petitioner argued that, by permitting the amendment, the lower appellate Court had given the plaintiffs an opportunity to change the nature of the suit and the cause of action altogether. He urged that having found that the plaintiffs were out of possession and, therefore, no suit for injunction lay, the only order, which the District Judge could pass, was an order dismissing the suit. Reliance was placed, in this connection, inter alia, on Mosque known as--Masjid Shahid Ganj v. Shromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar', AIR 1938 Lah 369 (A), where a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court held that: