BATNI Vs. SHRI TEJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition is directed against an order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Mandi, allowing an application of the respondent, for amending the plaint.

(2.) The respondent had instituted a suit, against the petitioners, for the issue of a mandatory injunction The allegations, in the suit, were that the property, in suit belonged to the Union of India, that the respondent had purchased the property at an auction sale, that the petitioners were the licensees of the property and that the license of the petitioners determined on 23-3-1964 but they had not vacated the properly. The respondent prayed for the issue of a mandatory injunction directing the petitioners to remove their goods, luggage and persons from the properly and restraining them from interfering with the possession of the respondent.

(3.) The petitioners contested the suit, on various grounds. It is not necessary, for the decision of the revision petition, to set out all those grounds. Suffice it to say that the petitioners denied that the property belonged to the Union of India or that they were mere licensees. The petitioners pleaded that they were in possession of the property as tenants on the basis of a lease granted by the real owner of the property, Hakumat Khan. The petitioners had, also, taken up preliminary objections, against the maintainability of the suit. One of the preliminary objections was that the respondent being, admittedly, out of possession, was not entitled to maintain a suit for injunction, without suing for possession.