JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) The plaintiff is in revision petition aggrieved against the order
passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application filed by the
plaintiff to seek amendment in the plaint so as to claim a decree for
possession was declined.
(2.) The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she
is owner in possession of 2/5th share of land measuring 273 Kanals 7 Marlas
against her husband and challenging the decree dated 15.12.1993. During
the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff moved an application that she has
been dispossessed and therefore, claimed decree for possession but the
same has been declined as the plaintiff has not disclosed the exact date and
time of allegedly taking forcible possession and the proposed amendment
will change the nature of the suit and that the plaintiff has a right to file a
separate suit on the specific cause of action and therefore, the plaintiff has
no right to amend the suit.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that
the respondent was in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff has
moved an application for amendment of the plaint at the fag end of the trial.
Such amendment has been sought after gross delay when the factum of
possession of the defendant was in the knowledge of the plaintiff.
Since the challenge is to the decree dated 15.12.1993, the
question whether the plaintiff was in possession on the date of the filing of
the suit or she has been subsequently dispossessed is only academic in
nature. Once the plaintiff is able to prove that the decree dated 15.12.1993
is fraudulent, the consequential relief has to follow in favour of the
plaintiff. Once the Court has found that the plaintiff has a right to file a
separate suit the filing of such suit will lead to multiplicity of proceedings
and it will not be conducive to the parties to litigate again and again on the
same question. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Court
declining the amendment is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to amend
the plaint so as to claim relief of possession as well. Since the plaintiff has
sought the amendment after some delay, the amendment shall be allowed.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.