SUNIL KUTHIALA Vs. AJWESH SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner alongwith proforma respondents (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit before the trial Court against respondents No. 1. to 4 (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) praying for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from throwing debris, stones, boulders, building material etc. on any part and portion of the suil land. Evidence was led by the parties and the case was listed for arguments. At this stage the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act. By way of this application the plaint was sought to be amended and the petitioner in addition to the reliefs already claimed also sought the relief of damages to the extent of Rs. 63,325/ . Consequent amendments were sought to be made in the main plaint as well as in the relief clause.

(2.) THIS application was opposed by the defendants. The learned trial Court vide order dated 7th March, 2005 rejected the application basically on two grounds. The learned trial Court held that the amendment should not be allowed since a fresh suit on the amended plaint would be barred by limitation and secondly, that applying the principle of Order VI Rule 17 CPC as amended in the year 2002, no amendment could be allowed since this was a relief which could have been claimed by the plaintiffs in the original plaint itself. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.

(3.) THE learned trial Court, in my opinion, has totally misdirected itself in the present case. Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act reads as follows: