Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 433 (UTT)

Anand Singh v. Ganga Prasad

2015-09-08

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. 1. Defendant has preferred present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.01.2015, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, in O.S. No. 52 of 2011, Ganga Prasad Vs. Jeevan Singh and Others, whereby amendment sought by the plaintiff was allowed as well as judgment and order dated 24.08.2015, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, whereby Civil Revision No. 24 of 2015, preferred by the defendant/petitioner, herein, was dismissed upholding the judgment and order dated 16.01.2015, passed by the learned Trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that plaintiff/respondent, herein, has filed Civil Suit, being O.S. No. 52 of 2011, in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant/ petitioner, herein; suit property was described as land of khasra No. 2534/2, new number 4458 M, measuring 0.0500 hectares, Village Rasoolpur, (Enfield Grant), Pargana, Pachawadoon, District Dehradun, which has been described as plot No. 104 Kha, Ward No. 9, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in the municipality of Vikas Nagar; during the pendency of the suit, plaintiff has moved amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. saying that plaintiff should be permitted to mention the boundaries of the suit property. Amendment sought was allowed by the Trial Court and revision arising therefrom was dismissed by the Revisional Court; feeling aggrieved, defendant/petitioner, herein, has filed present writ petition. 3. Order 7 Rule 3 C.P.C. reads as under:- “Where the subject-mater of the suit is immovable property. – Where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a records of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers.” 4. Language of Order 7 Rule 3 C.P.C. is unambiguous, plain and simple. As per the mandate of Order 7 Rule 3 C.P.C. plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it and, in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in the records of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. Meaning thereby, to identify suit property, plaintiff has to give description, settlement or survey numbers or boundaries or both. 5. Meaning thereby, to identify suit property, plaintiff has to give description, settlement or survey numbers or boundaries or both. 5. In the present case, initially, plaintiff has given old as well as new survey numbers as well as plot numbers as recorded in the municipal record and by the proposed amendment plaintiff wanted to add boundaries of the suit property in the plaint. Plaintiff has not changed suit property by way of amendment sought nor has changed cause of action and/ or nature of the suit property, therefore, both the courts below have rightly permitted the plaintiff to add boundaries of the suit property in the plaint. Therefore, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.