NISAR AHMAD Vs. NAIM AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein instituted Original Suit No. 932 of 1985, Iqbal Ahmad v. Nawab Ahmad. It has been filed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants who are petitioners herein to vacate the house and sahan shown in the map given at the foot of the plaint and vacate it within a stipulated time. When the suit came up for final arguments, the Counsel for the plaintiffs discovered that one of the reliefs which is main relief is not very well drafted. An application to amend the relief clause was filed seeking decree for eviction of the defendants specifically. The said amendment having been allowed by the two Courts below, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the suit for recovery of possession is barred by time as it has been sought for after 23 years. He submits that such amendment cannot be permitted. Strong reliance has been placed in the case of Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and other, 2009 77 AllLR 654, Clause 6 (Para 67) thereof.

(3.) In reply, Shri P.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondents who has filed caveat application, submits that on a true and meaningful reading of the plaint would show that relief for vacation of the disputed property is already their in the original plaint. Submission is that the amendment sough for is only clarificatory in nature and it does not change the nature of the case.