MOHAMMAD RAFIQ MIR Vs. MOHAMAD BHAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial court has allowed the applicant (plaintiff No.4 in the suit) to amend the plaint in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on the ground that the withdrawal of co-plaintiffs from the suit has necessitated the amendment. The court also did not agree with the private defendants that the amendment, if allowed, shall change the nature of the suit. The court also allowed the amendment on the ground that certain events have taken place after the institution of the suit and pertain to permission which has been canceled in the year 2020 and, therefore, there is no impediment in allowing the application.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners herein has taken the court through the record of the case in order to impress upon the court that the application could not have been allowed by the trial court. The counsel has referred to the litigation which is pending between the parties and the earlier orders passed by the courts regarding the permission which has been granted by the Srinagar Municipal Corporation or kept in abeyance.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein has submitted that the trial court has not passed the order in accordance with law as the reason given in the order prima facie does not fall within the parameters of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that the trial court has by way of amendment of plaint allowed the private respondent No.4 herein to challenge the order passed by the Municipal Authorities against which the suit is not maintainable.