NARAIN Vs. KISHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plff's. application to revise the order of the learned Judicial Officer, Shamlat Area, Sambhar, refusing to amend the plaint. The plff. brought a suit with the allegation that the plots Nos. 1607, 1608, 1609, & 1610, along with a few other plots, in the town of Sambhar belonged to him & had been in his possession as owner for a very long time. In August 1943, the defts. encroached upon a piece of land, 185 ft. x 24 ft. which formed part of Khasra No. 1607. The land in dispute was shown in the sketch attached to the plaint. The plff. prayed that the possession be delivered to him of the said land which was denoted by letters A, B, C, D on the sketch.

(2.) The defts. denied the plff's. title to the land in suit, and pleaded that they had been in possession thereof for about 17 years. The learned Judicial Officer framed issues, the material being issue No. 1 which runs as follows: "Whether the land in dispute, A, B, C, D. is owned & possessed by the plff?" The plff. produced his evidence & when one of his witnesses, Devi Narain, Revenue Inspector, who had prepared a plan, was being examined, it appeared from his statement that the land in dispute did not form part of the plot No. 1607, but of 1610. Thereupon the plff. made an application for amendment of the plaint to the ellect that instead of plot No. 1607, plot No. 1610 might be substituted in the plaint. The learned Judicial Officer, holding that the amendment substituted a new subject-matter, dismissed the application. The plff. has now come in revision to this Court.

(3.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the amendment did not seek to change the subject-matter. The only amendment, that was sought, was with respect to the description of the property in dispute. According to the plff's. case, the plots Nos. 1607 & 1610 belonged to the plff. & therefore the amendment did not cause any prejudice to the defts.