MUHAMMAD RAZA Vs. ZAMIRUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six analogous Letters Patent appeals arise from six out of 43 suits brought by the plaintiff against a number of defendants for rent of their holdings and the point for our decision arises only in connexion with these six suits. The suits were framed as claims for rent and the plaint in each case set forth the khata number of the holding in respect of which the claim was made. The plaint then went on to set forth the plot numbers appertaining to the plots comprised in the khata and it appears that the list of plot numbers was in each of these six cases incorrectly given. In some cases the specification in the plaint did not comprise the whole of the plot numbers in the holding and in some cases it set forth plots which were not in fact comprised in the holding.

(2.) The Munsif in dealing with these six suits dismissed them on the ground that they did not comply with the rule that a rent suit must be in respect of the entire holding and for nothing but the rent of the holding.

(3.) When the matter came before the learned Subordinate Judge he was of opinion that the Munsif should have, as he was in fact requested to do, allowed an amendment of the plaints so as to bring the plot numbers into conformity with the facts as regards each plot. He therefore reversed the decision of the Munsif in so far as it related to these plots and decreed the suits in favour of the landlord- plaintiff. The matter then went in second appeal to a learned Judge of this Court sitting singly who was of opinion that the amendment effected by the Subordinate Judge should not have been effected. He held that the amendment transgressed the rules of procedure that an amendment must not be allowed which changes the character of the suit.