Skip to content


Kisan Amrut Pawar Vs. Sarangdhar Baban Dhore and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Appln. No. 163 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1983Bom442; 1983MhLJ592
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17
AppellantKisan Amrut Pawar
RespondentSarangdhar Baban Dhore and anr.
Advocates:V.S. Sohoni, Adv.
Excerpt:
the case dealt with the suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of the property in the suit - the relief of injunction was consequential and was based on relief of declaration of ownership - it was contended that the amendment of consequential relief did not change the nature of the suit - the court ruled that the rejection of amendment application seeking to include relief of possession instead of relief of injunction was illegal and had to be quashed. - - 3. it is apparent that the order of the trial court is clearly wrong......is now seeking to ask the relief of possession. there is no change whatsoever in the plaint so far as the relief of declaration is concerned and the consequential relief is based mainly on the basis of declaration of ownership. hence it is mainly a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction or possession are consequential reliefs. if a change is made in the consequential relief, it cannot be said that the nature of the suit is changed. the nature is not at all changed and therefore, the order of the trial court deserves to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed.4. revision, application is allowed. plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint is allowed and the plaintiff is directed to carry out this amendment within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Plaintiff's request for amendment of the plaint is rejected by the trial court and hence this revision.

2. Originally the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration and permanent and mandatory injunctions in respect of the suit property. He obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction in this suit but this was subsequently vacated by the trial court. Plaintiff went in appeal but lost it. Thereafter the plaintiff sought to amend his plaint in the trial court so as to include relief of possession instead of relief for injunction and he sought to make suitable relevant amendments in the various clauses of the plant. The amendment application was opposed on behalf of defendants and the learned trial Judge rejected the application on the ground that the entire nature of the suit was going to be changed by this amendment. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision application.

3. It is apparent that the order of the trial Court is clearly wrong. The basic structure of the plaint is not at all changed. What is changed is the consequential relief. Instead of asking for injunctions, the plaintiff is now seeking to ask the relief of possession. There is no change whatsoever in the plaint so far as the relief of declaration is concerned and the consequential relief is based mainly on the basis of declaration of ownership. Hence it is mainly a suit for declaration of ownership and injunction or possession are consequential reliefs. If a change is made in the consequential relief, it cannot be said that the nature of the suit is changed. The nature is not at all changed and therefore, the order of the trial Court deserves to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed.

4. Revision, application is allowed. Plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint is allowed and the plaintiff is directed to carry out this amendment within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order by the trial court. Rule is made absolute but as there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents there will be no order as to costs of this revision application.

5. Petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //