Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1962 (ALL)

Roshan Lal Khanna v. Shyam Lal Khanna

2016-05-19

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. This petition has been filed against the order of Additional Civil Judge, (S.D.) dated 4.3.2016, allowing the amendment application of the plaintiff and order of District Judge dated 19.3.2016 dismissing the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. 2. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff sought to add some more facts in the plaint, saying that in between the lands shown in the plaint map by letters d] [k] x] ?k] as well as in the share of Pyare Lal, 10 ft. wide land fell in the share of the plaintiff, which was necessary for the purpose of ladder going to the first floor of the house. The ladder shown by letters [k] p ?k] x and the land in the southern side of the main building, the share of plaintiff was 1/2. The relief clause was also amended, praying that the plaintiff be declared as owner of the land shown by letters d] [k] Q] i in the plaint map. The trial court after considering the objection of the petitioner, by order dated 4.3.2016 allowed the revision. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Civil Revision No. Nil of 2016, which was dismissed at the admission stage by the order dated 19.3.2016. Hence, this petition has been filed. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was filed in the year 2006. The only relief prayed in the suit was for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the land shown by letters d] [k] Q] i . Now, the relief of declaration of title is being prayed that the nature of the suit has been changed. Such an amendment could not be allowed. The evidence of plaintiff has already been closed and now on the basis of proposed amendment, the matter will be reopened and will unnecessarily delay the proceeding of the suit. 4. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. A perusal of paragraph-6 of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has asserted his exclusive right over the land shown by letters d] [k] Q] i . The suit was filed for permanent injunction which otherwise also includes the relief of declaration of title. 4. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. A perusal of paragraph-6 of the plaint shows that the plaintiff has asserted his exclusive right over the land shown by letters d] [k] Q] i . The suit was filed for permanent injunction which otherwise also includes the relief of declaration of title. Thus, by amending the relief clause and praying for declaration of title, neither the nature of the suit is changed, nor any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. 5. So far as delay in filing the amendment application is concerned, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the pleading can be amended at any stage and no limitation has been prescribed for it. Only in the cases where the relief is barred by limitation, the amendment application can be refused. In this case, from the very beginning, the plaintiff has asserted his title and possession over the land in dispute and relief for permanent injunction has been prayed for against the defendants. Now, the relief of declaration is being added. Thus, it cannot be said that the relief has become barred by limitation. As such, the order allowing the amendment application does not suffer from any illegality. 6. However, the matter is pending since 2006 and evidence of the plaintiff has already been recorded. The trial court may expedite the hearing of the suit and try to conclude it within one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.