Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 986 (RAJ)

Harish Sancheti v. The U. I. T. , Jodhpur

2000-08-08

N.P.GUPTA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for consideration of stay petition. However, with consent of the parties, the main revision itself has been finally heard. 2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for perpetual injunction with respect to the piece of the land described in para (sic) of the plaint alleged to have been purchased by him vide different sale deeds as detailed therein and the plaintiff also annexed a Site plan of the entire parcel of the land alongwith suit marking the land as ABCD. The allegation of the plaintiff inter alia that the original defendant the Urban Improvement Trust is out and out to forcibly dispossess, while he is in lawful possession of the land, under the registered sale deeds and having paid a huge amount of Rs. 4,84,871/- by way of development charge. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present application for amendment purporting to seek amendment to the effect that he wants to plead the boundaries of the plot in question and also wants to produce a copy of the Site Plan purporting to show the situation of the land as is on the date of the suit by seeking to substitute the plan originally annexed with the plaint. It was sought to be contended that by substitution of the plan, the dispute raised by the Urban Improvement Trust would automatically come to an end. This application was opposed by the defendants No. 2 to 7 on the ground that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to substitute the site plain, as it would have the effect of changing the identity of the land, as compared to one originally pleaded in the plaint. It is also contended that the desired amendment is not necessary for determination of the real question in controversy between the parties. 4. The learned trial Court by the impugned order has refused the application for amendment on the ground that if the amendment is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit. 5. Having heard learned Counsel and having gone through the record, I find that true it is that the learned trial Court was not right in so saying that if the amendment is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit. 5. Having heard learned Counsel and having gone through the record, I find that true it is that the learned trial Court was not right in so saying that if the amendment is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit. The suit is a suit filed for injunction seeking protection of the possession of the plaintiff over the land purchased by him, and even after amendment, the suit remains a suit filed for injunction seeking protection of the possession over the land purchased by him. 6. However, despite this, in my view, it cannot be said that the learned court below was not right in refusing the amendment. The plaintiff has produced with the plaint, photostat copies of the sale deeds and the site plan are annexed with those sale deeds, a perusal of the site plan annexed with the plain and the Site plan annexed with the sale deeds which are part of the registered document show that, that is the same plan. As against which, the plan now sought to be produced is the plan purportedly prepared by the plaintiff himself. In such circumstances, if the plaintiff claims his title through the registered sale deeds and seeks to identify the plot to be the one purchased by the sale deeds, then he has to rely upon the plan annexed with the sale deeds itself. During trial it is open to the plaintiff to lead evidence and show rather establish as to how the land in his possession is relatable to the land so purchased and to establish the identity of the land with the land purchased by him under registered sale deed, but he cannot be allowed to substitute the plan. 7. Likewise, coming to the question of giving boundaries of the plot, suffice it to say that each of the sale deeds do mention the boundaries of land covered thereby. In such circumstances, this part of the amendment also cannot be allowed. 8. The sum and substance is that the amendment desired cannot be said to be necessary for determination of real question in controversy between the parties. As such, though for different reason, I am not inclined to interfere with the refusal of application for amendment. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. The record of the learned trial Court be retuned forthwith. As such, though for different reason, I am not inclined to interfere with the refusal of application for amendment. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. The record of the learned trial Court be retuned forthwith. The learned trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the suit expeditiously.Petition dismissed. *******