MANGTU RAM Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 1-2-1994 by which the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar has rejected the plaintiff's application for amendment of plaint.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with a part of the suit premises which was alleged to be in possession of plaintiff and for possession of the remaining part of the suit premises. The amendment incorporating the averments that during the pendency of the suit defendant has taken possession of that part of the suit premises also which was at the time of filing of the suit in possession of the plaintiff and in respect of which a decree for permanent injunction was sought and on that basis consequential relief for getting possession of the whole of the suit premises was also sought by amending the relief.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement has claimed that he was in possession of the suit premises at the time of filing of the suit. He on that basis contested the amendment application that when defendant has taken this plea at the earliest, plaintiff ought to have amended his plaint at that time. He denied the fact of having taken possession of any part of the suit premises during the pendency of the suit. He also pleaded that he has become owner of the premises by adverse possession because he claims to be in possession since 1976 and therefore, his contention was that if the amendment is allowed, he will loose his vested rights.