MOHAMMAD SHAFI RATHER Vs. GHULAM MOHAMMAD RATHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents on 14th October, 2006 commenced a suit in the Court of First Civil Sub-Judge, Srinagar for grant of permanent injunction decree restraining the petitioners from raising construction in vicinity of the respondent's property. The re-spondents alongside the suit, filed an appli-cation for ad-interim injunction. The trial Court vide order dated 22nd September, 2007 dismissed the temporary injunction applica-tion. However, officers and officials of Srinagar Municipal Corporation /Building Corporation Controlling Authority were asked to ensure that the proposed construc-tion was raised by the petitioners in accor-dance w,ith the approved building plans and the permission accorded in favour of the pe-titioners. The trial Court's order dated 22nd September, 2007 was assailed through me-dium of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar. The appeal was decided vide order dated 5th October, 2007.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 3 on 7th May, 2008 filed an application for amendment of the plaint. The respondents 1 to 3 proposed to plead that during pendency of the suit the petitioners illegally encroached upon a strip of land measuring six marlas comprising survey No. 717, Mouza Khusoo Padshahi Bagh, Srinagar and brought it under the suit con-struction in violation of the rights of the re-spondents 1 to 3 and against the building plans sanctioned in their favour. The amend-ment application found no opposition from the official respondents. However, the peti-tioners resisted the application on the grounds that the application was time barred and so was case sought to be introduced by the re-spondents 1 to 3. The petitioners insisted that the case set up under the cover of amend-ment to the plaint, was beyond the relief sought in the plaint. It was pointed out that the respondents 1 to 3 in the suit sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from carrying on any construc-tion without permission and restraining the official respondents from issuing any permis-sion in favour of the petitioners; that the re-spondents 1 to 3 did not question the per-mission granted by the official respondents in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners insisted that as any amendment to the plaint enabling the plaintiff to introduce a new cause of action was not permissible, the ap-plication deserved to be dismissed. The pe-titioners insisted that the facts soug'ht to be brought on record through amendment were already in the knowledge of the respondents 1 to 3 and since the respondents 1 to 3 de-spite such knowledge ignore to plead said facts, it was no more open to the respondents 1 to 3 to plead the facts through amendment of the plaint.

(3.) Learned trial Court on consideration of the matter held the facts sought to be in-corporated by way of amendment to reflect, "Post-litem developments" and were likely to "affect the question to be determined in the lis". The rules of procedure, in the opin-ion of the trial Court, being in the nature of "hand maid" to the cause of justice would not admit of any hyper technical interpreta-tion. The trial Court accordingly allowed the application, emphasizing that the entire ob-ject of the amendment was to prevent multi-plicity of litigation and to have all the controverseles involved, determined in one lis.