J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 19th Nov., 1987, whereby the application for the amendment of the plaint was rejected.
(2.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for the grant of the permanent injunction restraining lining the defendants from interfering with their lawful possession of the suit land. When the parties concluded their evidence and the case was fixed for arguments, the plaintiffs moved an application under Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the plaint. According to the plaintiff, wanted to give the correct surroundings of the disputed property by way of amendment of the plaint. That application was opposed by the defendants on the ground that a new case was being set up by the plaintiffs in the garb of the proposed amendment. The trial Court after considering the whole matter found that the petitioners could file a separate suit in respect of the land exchanged by them with that of Vijay Pal Singh. There is no need to the incorporating of that land in the suit because this is simply a suit for permanent injunction which does not involve adjudication of the rights or title of the parties in respect of the suit property, only the question of the possession of the parties is involved. So, the amendment, in question, is not to be allowed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the view taken by the trial Court in this behalf was wrong and illegal. The amendment sought for was necessary as the plaintiffs wanted to give the correct boundaries and did not change the claim in the original plaint. In support of the contention, the learn d counsel relied upon Mange Ram Vs. Jogi Ram, 1988 (2) PLR 398 Nichhalbhai Vs. Jaswantlal, AIR 1966 S.C. 997, Manohar Lal Vs. N. B. M. Supply, Gurgaon, AIR 1969 S.C. 1267.;