Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE prayer made in the present petition is for setting aside of order dated June 6, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, whereby an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from forcibly and illegally dispossessing the petitioners/plaintiffs from the land in dispute. The suit was filed on September 22, 2003. It was mentioned in the suit originally filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs that the respondents/defendants were trying to dispossess the petitioners/plaintiffs from the suit land in the garb of sale deeds in their favour. During the pendency of the suit, present application was filed for amendment of the plaint seeking relief of declaration to the effect that the sale deeds executed by one Ramzanan in favour of respondents/defendants have no effect on the rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The application was contested by the respondents/defendants raising the plea that the same is not bonafide as the issues sought to be raised are based on the facts which were well within the knowledge of the petitioners/plaintiffs even at the time of filing of the suit as the same were even mentioned by them in the suit filed by them but no relief for declaration was claimed.
(2.) LEARNED trial Court, while considering the respective contentions of the parties, rejected the application primarily on the reason that the same would change the nature of the suit as the suit for injunction was sought to be converted into a suit for declaration. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted that the application filed by the petitioners is bonafide and it is just and proper to accept the prayer made so as to enable the Court below to decide the lis between the parties in its entirety, which will result in avoidance of multiplicity of litigation. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others v. K.K. Modi and others : 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 577 and Pankaja and another v. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. & Others : 2004(3) CCC 401 (SC).
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, objecting to the prayer made by the petitioners/plaintiffs, submitted that the facts on the basis of which the amendment is sought to be made and relief of declaration is prayed were well within their knowledge at the time of filing of the suit. The sale deeds, declaration with regard to which is sought to be prayed by way of amendment, were already mentioned by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the suit originally filed. It was only injunction which was prayed for by the petitioners/plaintiffs at the time of filing of the original suit submitting that the respondents/defendants were trying to dispossess the petitioners from the suit land on the basis of sale deeds in their favour. Relying upon various judgments, namely Prem Chand v. Chetan Dass : 2006(2) CCC 41 (P & H),Sayanna and Another v. Thimanna and Another : 2003(1) CCC 595 (AP), Mrs. Sharan Arora v. Parkash Kaur and others : (2000 -3) 126 PLR 80 (P & H)and Umrao Singh v. Ram Dulari and Others : 1998(2) CCC 110 (Del.), the submission is that the amendment, as sought by the petitioners/plaintiffs will entirely change the nature of the suit as the suit for injunction is sought to be converted in the suit for declaration. Further, it is submitted that the facts were well within the knowledge of the petitioners/plaintiffs even at the time of filing of the suit. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by learned Court below was not called for any interference.;