- (1.) This application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order no.55 dated December 19, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Contai in Title Suit No.202 of 1999 thereby rejecting an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff filed the said title suit praying for declaration of the following reliefs: a. for declaration that the plaintiff has lien over the property described in the schedule below until and unless the accounts are complete; b. for a decree directing the principal defendants to execute and register appropriate deed of transfer in respect of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff by accepting the balance contract money of Rs.8,50,640/-, in default the plaintiff may be permitted to get it done through the process of court; c. for possession of the suit property; d. for attachment before judgment; e. for permanent injunction restraining the principal defendants so that they may not make any transfer in respect of any portion of the suit property and may not take any money from any person in connection thereof; f. for temporary injunction in terms of prayer (e); g. for a decree of accounts and appointment of Accounts commissioner ; h. for interest on the decretal amount from 7.11.94 till realization at commercial rate; i. for costs; and for other legal and equitable reliefs."
(2.) According to the plaint case, a Memorandum of Understanding dated October 7, 1999 for development of the suit property, as described in the schedule of the plaint, was executed between the plaintiff and the principal defendants/opposite party nos.1 & 2 herein. Thereafter, on November 7, 1994 an irrevocable power of attorney was executed between the plaintiff/petitioner and the opposite party nos.1 & 2 for the purpose of construction of the building, inducting tenants therein and also for construction of commercial cum shopping complex, utilizing vacant land, etc. It was registered. The opposite party nos.1 & 2 took money from the petitioners for that purpose. When the construction was almost finished and the shops were going to be transferred in favour of the intending purchasers after execution of the deeds, all of a sudden, the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 had sent a letter to the petitioners revoking the power of attorney. The plaintiff replied to that letter. The opposite party nos.1 & 2 asked the petitioner for accounts of the expenditure. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the suit for the reliefs stated above.
(3.) In that suit, the defendants appeared. They are contesting the suit by filing a written statement. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint for inclusion of certain paragraphs in the plaint including the prayer for amendment of the prayer portion of the plaint. That application for amendment was rejected by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the plaintiff.;