NATWAR LAL Vs. PRAHLAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.10.2004 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by the petitioners -plaintiffs seeking amendment in the plaint has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus : the petitioners filed a suit for possession, damages and permanent injunction against Prahlad Singh and Dalpat Singh regarding property known as 'Shahji Ka Bagicha' situated at Ward No. 8, Kuchaman City. It was inter -alia claimed that the Western portion of the property was on rent with Nobal Senior Secondary School, about 1/2 Eastern portion is on rent with Commercial Taxes Department and Sheep & Wool Department and 1/2 Southern portion was vacant which was in possession of Gokul Chand. It was claimed that Venu Gopal, power of attorney holder of Gokul Chand executed sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs pertaining to the Eastern portion of the property and the possession was handed -over to the plaintiffs. The Commercial Taxes Department and Sheep & Wool Department were informed about the transfer and they attorned to the plaintiffs and started paying rent to the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the respondent No. 2 got a agreement to sale executed with the connivance of defendant No. 1 on 31.8.1989; trespassed on a part of the property and the said fact came to the notice of the plaintiffs when defendant Prahalad Singh filed a suit before the District Court, Merta based on the said fraudulent agreement to sale and got ex -parte incorrect site inspection report from the Court Commissioner. The right of the defendants to execute the agreement to sale and any right under the said agreement to sale was questioned. It was alleged that subsequent to the initial trespass further trespass has been committed by the defendant, ultimately, it was prayed that the possession of the suit property as indicated in Annexure -Ka alongwith damages be awarded. The suit was filed on 14.3.2001.

(3.) THE application was opposed by the defendants. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the fresh cause of action has arisen to the plaintiffs on 19.5.2001, which is different from the earlier cause of action and if the amendment is permitted, the same would change the cause and consequently, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs.