- (1.) A suit filed by plaintiff Gurinder Singh seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff and against interference in his possession by the defendants, is pending adjudication before the lower Court since 9.6.2009. By way of application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC the plaint was sought to be amended drastically. The suit had been filed by petitioner-plaintiff claiming that earlier his father Gurmail was owner in possession of the suit land but on 21.5.2002 he had transferred the same to the plaintiff. Claim of the respondent-defendant in the written statement was that he had purchased the suit land vide two sale deeds and was in possession thereof.
(2.) By way of amendment in the plaint, the plaintiff had sought to plead that the defendants had illegally, forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land and thus the possession was to be restored to the plaintiff. It was also claimed that since the plaint was not happily worded it needed to be substituted.
(3.) In effect, if amendment sought by the plaintiff is allowed, it will change the entire contents and texture of the plaint as material paragraphs No.1 to 3 and 11 containing entire case of the plaintiff are sought to be changed and only paragraphs with formal averments are to remain unamended. Observations made by the learned Lower Court are to the following effect:- "Also, after going through the present application it transpires that by way of proposed amendment plaintiff wants to substitute para No.1 to 3 of the plaint and want to add 11 paras in plaint after substituting para No.1 to 3. From perusal of plaint it transpires that all other paras except para No.1 to 4 are legal paragraphs. So, it appears that by way of amendment application he wants to present an altogether new case before the defendant. Also, plaintiff has not shown as to why these facts which were within his knowledge at the time of filing of the suit were not incorporated in the original plaint. Also, in para No.3 of the present application it has been submitted that plaint is not happily worded so it shows that the present application has been moved only to fill the lacuna in the case as the plaintiff was not happy with the draft of its original plaint. Also, the amendment as sought for is not bona fide as t he present suit was filed in the year 2009 and the present application has been moved on 17.12.2012 and the plaintiff even has not averred as to why the amendment was not sought earlier when these facts were within his knowledge at the time of filing of the suit. Although, case is at initial stage but proposed amendment cannot be allowed as it will amount to change of nature of suit as if proposed amendment is allowed entire claim of the plaintiff will be changed.";