J.S.KHEHAR,J - (1.) THE petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from dispossessing her or illegally interfering in peaceful possession of the suit premises (described in the heading of the plaint as 112 Joshi Colony, Amritsar, allegedly composing of one bed room, one drawing-cum-dining room, 2 both rooms, one kitchen, one store room and a barasati). In addition to the aforesaid primary prayer, claim of the petitioner/plaintiff also was for restraining the defendants "from obstructing the passage marked AB, staircase marked CD which goes to the first floor, and bath room under the staircase marked EF, which is part of the tenanted premises by locking doors at point Z and Y fully detailed in the site plan attached...."
(2.) THE suit in question was filed on 23.10.1996. As per the averments made in the suit and from the heading of the plaint as also the relief claimed, it becomes clear that the plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. From the narration of facts in the order of the civil Court, impugned in the present case, it emerges that the petitioner/plaintiff's evidence has been concluded. Even the statements of two witnesses produced by the defendants have been recorded. It is at this juncture that an application was filed by the petitioner/.plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking various amendments in the plaint. The cumulative effect of these amendments in the factual scenario is that after the filing of the suit i.e. during the pendency of the suit the respondent/defendants had taken forcible possession of one bath-room which is under the staircase and the barsati, they had also locked the gate located near the staircase. On the basis of the aforesaid factual position which is alleged to have occurred after the filing of the suit, an amendment has been sought even to the heading in the prayer of the suit so as to seek restoration of the possession of the suit property of which the petitioner/plaintiff has been dispossessed after the filing of the suit and for unlocking the gate located near the staircase.
(3.) INTERESTINGLY , the details of the amendment sought which have been extracted in the impugned order of the trial Court, do not reveal the exact date on which the petitioner/plaintiff was dispossessed of the bath-room under the staircase and the barsati and the exact date when the gate located next to the staircase was locked. Suffice it to state the tenor of the amendment shows that the possession from the bathroom under the staircase and the barasati as also the locking of the gate took place during the pendency of the suit.;