ORDER : V.SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri Kazi Salim Hasham Saheb, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Syed Imran, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, Sri M. Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.S.Malipatil, counsel for respondent No.3. 2. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.3/2020 before the Karnataka Waqf Tribunal, Bangalore. He filed the suit initially with the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass judgment and decree: (a) Granting an order of permanent injunction Restraint, the defendants their agents, servants, representatives, or anybody claiming under them from in any way disposing the plaintiff from the suit schedule premises without due process of law. (b) Directing the defendant No.1 to execute fresh lease deed in favor of plaintiff with respect of the suit schedule premises as per rent & Security deposit amount of the adjacent/neighbor shop by way of Mandatory Injunction. (c) Directing the defendants to pay the costs of the suit (d) Granting any other relief/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. Suit has been adjudicated and it is now at the stage of main arguments. At this stage, an application seeking amendment of the plaint came to be filed. 4. Proposed amendment reads as under: “Amendment sought for to add as Para No.3.1: It is submitted that, the Plaintiff herein was eager to establish Wood Ready various type of furniture in Defendant Commercial Complex in name and style Arman Furniture. The Plaintiff contacted Defendant No.1 since January-2018 as there was a legal battle against the Plaintiff husband from the Defendant No.1. In fact the Defendant No.1 herein was issued the notice under Karnataka Public Premises Eviction Act against Syed Samiulla. In fact there was a Miscellaneous Appeal before the Additional District Judge, Shivamogga. The Plaintiff herein was invested and established the Arman Furniture however there was no lease agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1. In fact since 2006 the Plaintiff established the aforesaid furniture business. It is submitted that, the Plaintiff husband being a family head took the care in the business at Shop No:5. It is further submitted that, the Plaintiff took the lawful possession from the Syed Samiulla with consent and knowledge of the Defendant No.1 in the year 2006. In fact since 2006 the Plaintiff established the aforesaid furniture business. It is submitted that, the Plaintiff husband being a family head took the care in the business at Shop No:5. It is further submitted that, the Plaintiff took the lawful possession from the Syed Samiulla with consent and knowledge of the Defendant No.1 in the year 2006. It is submitted that, some of the Muslims Hostel Committee members particularly then Secretary Mohammed Saleem was against the Plaintiff for the reason that there was another Furniture Centre running by National Furniture and Shivamogga Furniture they instigated to expel Plaintiff from the Muslims Hostel Complex. It is submitted that, the Plaintiff approached the Chairman of the Committee and State WAQF Authority in this regard, the Plaintiff got the advise to approach the Hostel Committee to allot the Shop No.5 to continue the aforesaid business. It is submitted that, the Committee though agreed in the month of January-2018 no process made in this regard. It is submitted that, in the month of August-2018 the Plaintiff approached the Hostel Committee (Defendant No.1) agreed for allotment within 1 or 2 months, the Plaintiff keep quit under belief and impression that, Committee will inform and called in this regard. It is submitted that, before allotment the Hostel Committee instructed to deposit of Rs.4,02,600/- tentatively. After fixation of the rent the deposit amount will be return by taking 11 month rent etc. In fact on 01-04-2019 the Defendant Committee called to put signature on non-judicial typed paper stated that Stamp Paper is to be forward to the State WAQF Board. It is submitted that, Defendant No.1 categorically stated that rent of Rs.36,600/-annually fixed it comes around Rs.3,050/-p.m. approval of the State Board is needed. However, the Defendant No.1 turned hostile no deposit amount return. After signature of the Plaintiff the Defendant Committee issued the defaulted notice stating that, monthly rent is Rs.36,600/- immediately the Plaintiff replied and categorically stated that, fixed rent is Rs.3050/- not as stated in the default notice dated: 18-07-2019 the Plaintiff replied the same on 25-07-2019. It is submitted that, then none of the Defendant No.1 disputed the reply dated:25-07-2019. However the Defendant No.1 Committee continue to give the all kind of torture. Under the above fact and circumstances the present suit is filed. It is submitted that, then none of the Defendant No.1 disputed the reply dated:25-07-2019. However the Defendant No.1 Committee continue to give the all kind of torture. Under the above fact and circumstances the present suit is filed. To add as Para No. 3.2: It is submitted that, the Defendant No.1 Committee out of instigation and influence from the other Furniture Centre at Hostel Committee Complex fraudulently took the advance deposit of Rs.4,02,600/- in the month of September and October-2018, then on 01-04-2019 created the Lease Agreement contents against the oral information from the Defendant No.1 and incorporated as monthly rent of Rs.36,600/-. It is submitted that, whole act of the Defendant No.1 & 2 much against the all existing law, the Defendant No.1 & 2 never conducted auction in respect of the Shops which are existed in Defendant No.1 Hostel Complex. It is submitted that, demand of the Defendant No.1 & 2 rent of Rs.36,600/-not accepted by the Plaintiff at any point of time. Amendment sought for to add the Additional Relief at Relief Column: 1) To declare that, the contents of the Lease Agreement dated:01-04-2019 signature of the Plaintiff obtained by the Defendant by way of misrepresentation and fraudulently without consent of the Plaintiff. As there is no such auction held on 17-10-2018 same is not binding to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff agreed to pay rent of Rs. 3,050/- per month.” 5. The application was opposed by the contesting respondents by filing detailed statement of objection. 6. Learned Presiding Officer of Waqf Tribunal, considering the rival contents of the parties, rejected the application seeking amendment inter alia holding in para 8 and 9 as under: “8) I have carefully perused facts pleaded by both parties and proposed facts. Admittedly this application is filed for amendment of plaint after conclusion of oral evidence of plaintiff. When the case was posted for cross-examination of DW1, the plaintiff has come up with this application seeking permission to amend plaint. This suit is filed for Permanent Injunction to restrain defendant no.1 and 2 from interfering with Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule shop. It is clear from perusal of facts pleaded by plaintiff and defendant no.1 that the dispute between plaintiff and defendant no.1 arose in respect of rent fixed For Suit Schedule Property. This suit is filed for Permanent Injunction to restrain defendant no.1 and 2 from interfering with Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule shop. It is clear from perusal of facts pleaded by plaintiff and defendant no.1 that the dispute between plaintiff and defendant no.1 arose in respect of rent fixed For Suit Schedule Property. According to plaintiff rent of Rs.3,050/- p.m was fixed by defendant no.1 by executing lease agreement dated 01.04.2019. Whereas the defendant no.1 contended that the rent as per lease agreement dated 01.04.2019 was fixed @ Rs.36,600/-p.m. It is clear from averments of the plaint that the plaintiff approached this Tribunal when the defendant no.1 demanded rent @ Rs.36,600/- p.m based on lease agreement dated 01.04.2019. From this it is clear that the plaintiff had knowledge about the contents of lease agreement dated 01.04.2019 as on filing of this suit. Inspite of it the plaintiff filed suit for bare injunction and for Mandatory Injunction. The plaintiff did not choose to file suit for declaration. Apart from this the list of documents produced by plaintiff along with plaint dated 25.02.2020 makes it clear that the document serial no.1 is lease agreement dated 01.04.2019 and the plaintiff had complete knowledge about contents of lease agreement as on date of this suit. This being the fact now the plaintiff is estopped from contending that she had no knowledge about contents of Ex.P1 and the signature of plaintiff is obtained fraudulently on lease deed. These facts and circumstances of the case show that the relief of declaration in respect of contents of lease agreement dated 01.04.2019, claimed by the plaintiff to be inserted in plaint at prayer column is barred by limitation. Therefore the proposed amendment in respect of insertion of relief of declaration in plaint prayer cannot be allowed. It is well settled principles of law that the application filed for amendment of plaint to insert if it additional prayer of declaration cannot be allowed if it is barred by limitation. The facts and circumstances of this case show that the plaintiff willfully omitted to seek declaratory relief in respect of lease deed dated 01.04.2019 initially. This being case, now plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend plaint. If the application filed for amendment of plaint is allowed, the defendant will be put to hardship. The facts and circumstances of this case show that the plaintiff willfully omitted to seek declaratory relief in respect of lease deed dated 01.04.2019 initially. This being case, now plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend plaint. If the application filed for amendment of plaint is allowed, the defendant will be put to hardship. It is further opined that if the proposed amendment is allowed then it will change nature of suit and cause delay in disposal of this case. The proposed facts are not necessary for final adjudication of this case. This suit being bare injunction suit, proposed facts are not necessary for final adjudication of this case. Though the principles held in decisions relied upon by plaintiff are well settled, but same are not helpful to plaintiff. 9) As far as the other part of proposed pleadings are concerned these facts have already come on record. The plaintiff has also pleaded the fact that there is dispute with regard to quantum of rent fixed by defendant no.1 inrespect of Suit Schedule shop in lease agreement dated 01.04.2019. The defendant no.1 has also pleaded the facts in respect of this lease deed. Therefore it is opined that the facts proposed by plaintiff in application para no.3.1, 3.2 are not necessary for final adjudication of matter as these facts have already come on record. For these reasons it is opined that the plaintiff has failed to make out to allow I.A.No.12. For these reasons, above point is answered in negative. I pass following order; ORDER Interim Application No.12 is rejected. No order as to costs.” 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition on the following grounds: - The impugned order at Annexure- A is not sustainable both under law and on facts and hence, the same is liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. - It is submitted that, the petitioner herein was eager to establish Wood Ready various type of furniture in respondent commercial complex in name and style Arman Furniture. The petitioner contacted respondent no.1 since January 2018 as there was a legal battle against the petitioner husband from the respondent no. 1. In fact the respondent no.1 herein was issued the notice under Karnataka Public Premises Eviction Act against Syed Samiulla. In fact there was a Miscellaneous Appeal before the Additional District Judge, Shivamogga. The petitioner contacted respondent no.1 since January 2018 as there was a legal battle against the petitioner husband from the respondent no. 1. In fact the respondent no.1 herein was issued the notice under Karnataka Public Premises Eviction Act against Syed Samiulla. In fact there was a Miscellaneous Appeal before the Additional District Judge, Shivamogga. The petitioner herein was invested and established the Arman Furniture however there was no lease agreement between the petitioner and respondent no.1. In fact, since 2006 the petitioner established the aforesaid furniture business. It is submitted that, the petitioner husband being a family head took the care in the business at shop no.5. It is further submitted that, the petitioner took the lawful possession from the syed samiulla with consent and knowledge of the respondent no. 1 in the year 2006. - It is submitted that some of the Muslims Hostel Committee members particularly then secretary Mohammed Saleem was against the petitioner for the reason that there was another furniture Centre running by National Furniture and Shivamogga Furniture they instigated to expel petitioner from the Muslim Hostel Complex. - It is submitted that, the petitioner approached the Chairman of the Committee and State Waqf Authority in this regard, the petitioner for the advise to approach the Hostel Committee to allot the shop no.5 to continue the aforesaid business: - It is submitted that, the Committee though agreed in the month of January 2018 no process made in this, regard. It is further submitted that in the month of august 2018 the petitioner approached the Hostel Committee (Respondent No.1) agreed for allotment within 1 or 2 months, the petitioner keep quit under belief and impression that, Committee will inform and called in this regard. - It is submitted that, before allotment the Hostel Committee instructed to deposit of Rs.4,02,600/-tentatively. After fixation of the rent the deposit amount will be return by taking 11 month rent etc. In fact, on 01-04-2019 the Respondent no.1 Committee called to put signature on non-judicial typed paper stated that stamp paper is to be forward to the State Waqf Board. It is further submitted that respondent no.1 categorically stated that rent of Rs. 36,600/annually fixed it comes around Rs.30,50/- P.M approval of the State Board in needed. However, the Respondent no. 1 turned hostile no deposit amount return. After signature of the petitioner the respondent no.1 committee issued the defaulted notice. It is further submitted that respondent no.1 categorically stated that rent of Rs. 36,600/annually fixed it comes around Rs.30,50/- P.M approval of the State Board in needed. However, the Respondent no. 1 turned hostile no deposit amount return. After signature of the petitioner the respondent no.1 committee issued the defaulted notice. - It is submitted that, the respondent no.1 committee out of instigation and influence from the other furniture Centre at Hostel Committee Complex fraudulently took the advance deposit of Rs.4,02,600/ in the month o September and October 2018, then on 01-04-2019 created the lease agreement contents against the oral information from the respondent no.1 and incorporated as monthly rent of Rs. 36,600/-. - It is submitted that, whole act of the respondent no.1 & 2 much against the all existing law, the respondent no.1 & 2 never conducted auction in respect of the Shops which are existed in respondent no.1 Hostel Complex. - It is submitted that, demand of the respondent 1 rent of Rs. 36,600/- not accepted by the petitioner at any point time. - It is submitted that the above averment must to be incorporate in plaint to adjudicate for fair trial in the interest of justice & equity. - It is submitted that Amendment sought for to add the additional relief at relief column "To declare that, the contents of the Lease Deed dated 01-04-2019 signature of the plaintiff obtained by the defendant by way of misrepresentation and fraudulently without consent of the plaintiff. As there is no such, auction held on 17-10-2018 same is not binding to the plaintiff, the plaintiff agreed to pay rent of Rs.3,050/- per month. The averment must to be incorporate in prayer column to adjudicate for fair trial in the interest of justice & equity. It is very much requiring and help to below Waqf tribunal to adjudicate the matter on merits, & principal of natural justice. Hence this ground the order on I.A No.12/2024 to be set aside this Hon'ble Court. - That the order at Annexure- "A" passed by below Waki Tribunal is wholly illegal, arbitrary and the same is in total violation of the principal of natural justice. - Therefore, the order under challenged is liable to be set aside. - That the impugned order on I. A No.12/2024 in O.S No.3/2020 is perverse, unreasonable, unjust, irrational, improper, capricious and unsustainable in law. - Therefore, the order under challenged is liable to be set aside. - That the impugned order on I. A No.12/2024 in O.S No.3/2020 is perverse, unreasonable, unjust, irrational, improper, capricious and unsustainable in law. - That the impugned order at Annexure- "A" is arbitrary, illegal and same is passed by the below Waqf Tribunal without application of mind and the same liable to be set aside. - The impugned order I.A No. 12/2024 in O.S No.3/2020 passed by the Waqf Tribunal suffers from legal infirmities and is therefore liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. - That the impugned Order have resulted grave miscarriage of justice and they the impugned orders are liable to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. - That the Waqf Tribunal passed the impugned order by flouting all cannons of law and thereby, the Tribunal has caused grave legal injury, more hardship to the petitioner herein. 8. Sri Kazi Salim Hasham Saheb, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contented that amendment is necessary for appropriate prayer and plaintiff has also sought for taking the additional plea that contents of the lease agreement is not binding on the plaintiff which has not been considered by the trial Court in proper manner resulting in miscarriage of justice and therefore sought for allowing the revision petition. 9. Per contra, counsel for respondents opposed the petition prayer and supports the impugned judgment. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that all amendments must be allowed before the commencement of the evidence as a matter of course. 12. However, after the trial has commenced, if a party wants to amend the pleadings, the affidavit must contain proper reasons as to why such a plea could not have been taken earlier despite due diligence. 13. In the case on hand, the facts mentioned in the proposed amendment was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the inception of the plaint itself. 14. 13. In the case on hand, the facts mentioned in the proposed amendment was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the inception of the plaint itself. 14. Further, prayer column which is sought to be amended needs no amendment inasmuch as Tribunal can mould the relief under Order VII Rule 7 CPC and no party can be denied the just relief only on the ground that there is an improper prayer made in the plaint. 15. Further, affidavit in support of the application seeking amendment is vague and bald. In the affidavit assigning no reasons are assigned whatsoever for the proposed amendment and why proposed amendment could not be urged earlier. 16. Moreover, when the case has reached the stage of main arguments, that too after the long drawn trial, trying to amend the plaint that the contents of the lease deed would not bind the plaintiff is nothing but a vexatious plea only to protract the proceedings further. 17. Under such circumstances, the grounds urged in the revision petition do not call for interference by this Court in this revision. 18. Hence, the following ORDER (i) Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. (ii) No order as to costs.