GANESH KUMAR Vs. SANJEEV KUMAR GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in a suit for grant of decree of permanent injunction. The defendants have filed a counter claim claiming that Neeru Gupta is the owner in possession, on the basis of sale deed executed, in her favour in the year 1996. The plaintiff's application for permission to amend the prayer clause in order to seek relief of declaration that the aforesaid sale deed, in favour of Neeru Gupta, is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, has been dismissed.

(2.) The trial court, while dismissing the application, has held that the plaintiff now wants to seek a new relief, which was in his knowledge and the trial of the suit has also commenced and in view of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the amendment cannot be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the court comes to a conclusion that inspite due diligence, parties could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial.

(3.) In the facts of the present case, it is evident that the amendment sought is formal in nature. The plaintiff has already sought relief of the decree of permanent injunction. By amendment, he wants to add the relief to the fact that such sale deed will not affect his rights. Admittedly, he is not the executant of the sale deed in favour of Neeru Gupta. Therefore, he is not required to seek annulment of the sale deed. The amended suit will be governed by Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Sec. 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 shall not be applicable.