VIRENDER SINGH Vs. BHAG CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to the revision are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession of the suit land/property. During the pendency of the suit before the trial Court, an application under Order 6 I Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking leave to amend the plaint and to seek the relief of decree of possession of the suit land, as an alternative to, relief of prohibitory, injunction already sought was moved by the plaintiff. Reply has been filed to the said application. The learned trial Court heard the arguments.

(2.) It allowed the amendment and in view of this court rightly because as per the latest view on the subject as enunciated right upon the Apex Court, the Court should be liberal while allowing the amendments unless such an amendment causes serious prejudice to the opposite parries who cannot be compensated by an order of costs. In the present case, these two bars are not existing.

(3.) However, it has been forcibly contended by Shri Rajeev Mehta learned counsel for the plaintiff -petitioner that the prayer for leading evidence in support of the amendment whereby a decree for possession has also been sought, illegally declined by the learned trial Court. In the view of this Court, j there is force in this argument. The reason given in the impugned order for I refusing permission to lead evidence is perfunctory. In the view of this Court, it is no reason at all.