GURMEL SINGH Vs. RAJ KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed by the petitioner seeking to question the validity of the order dtd. 23/9/2022 (Annex.P/6) passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Pilibanga (Hanumangarh) whereby the applications filed by the respondents/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the suit and applications for temporary injunction have been allowed.

(2.) It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit on 18/3/2015 for perpetual injunction alongwith an application for temporary injunction against the petitioner/defendant before the trial court. Written statement to the suit and reply to applications for temporary injunction were filed on 4/3/2016 denying the averments made by the respondents/plaintiffs and claiming that they are in possession of the suit property. Prior to that the respondents/plaintiffs filed applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend the suit on 3/4/2015, inter-alia, with the submissions that after filing of the suit on 18/3/2015, on 27/3/2015 the petitioner/defendant has forcibly taken possession of the suit property and has constructed a boundary wall by demolishing the existing temporary boundary wall. Based on which, the amendment was sought in the plaint and the application seeking temporary injunction by adding paragraph "6A'" in the plaint and clause "B" in the relief clause. Further relief was sought for possession and removal of construction made by the petitioner/defendant alongwith a prayer for mandatory injunction.

(3.) The petitioner/defendant filed response to the applications, inter-alia, with the submissions that even on the date when the suit was filed, the petitioner was in possession and that the suit was filed based on incorrect facts by concealing material facts and that the amendment sought, if allowed, the same would change the nature of the suit from mandatory injunction instead of perpetual injunction.