SURESH KUMAR Vs. MAMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the disputed property in the trial Court wherein it was pleaded that the disputed piece of land, where their stall was installed, was taken after payment of fee from Gram Panchayat at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month, vide resolution No. 9 dated 25th September, 1988, therefore, the disputed land belongs to Gram Panchayat and the defendants have nothing to do with the said land but they want to dispossess the petitioners without any authority of law, therefore, the defendants should be restrained by way of permanent injunction not to dispossess the petitioners from the disputed piece of land.

(3.) HE further contended that the trial Court committed an illegality in rejecting the application only on the ground of delay whereas the delay itself cannot be a ground for rejection of the application for amendment in the pleading if the amendment sought for is necessary for proper adjudication of the case. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court is liable to be setaside and amendment sought for, may be allowed in the interest of justice.