N.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE matter comes up for consideration of stay petition. However, with consent of the parties, the main revision itself has been finally heard.
(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the present suit for perpetual injunction with respect to the piece of the land described in para (sic) of the plaint alleged to have been purchased by him vide different sale deeds as detailed therein and the plaintiff also annexed a Site plan of the entire parcel of the land alongwith suit marking the land as ABCD. The allegation of the plaintiff inter alia that the original defendant the Urban Improvement Trust is out and out to forcibly dispossess, while he is in lawful possession of the land, under the registered sale deeds and having paid a huge amount of Rs. 4,84,871/- by way of development charge. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present application for amendment purporting to seek amendment to the effect that he wants to plead the boundaries of the plot in question and also wants to produce a copy of the Site Plan purporting to show the situation of the land as is on the date of the suit by seeking to substitute the plan originally annexed with the plaint. It was sought to be contended that by substitution of the plan, the dispute raised by the Urban Improvement Trust would automatically come to an end. This application was opposed by the defendants No. 2 to 7 on the ground that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to substitute the site plain, as it would have the effect of changing the identity of the land, as compared to one originally pleaded in the plaint. It is also contended that the desired amendment is not necessary for determination of the real question in controversy between the parties.
(3.) THE learned trial Court by the impugned order has refused the application for amendment on the ground that if the amendment is allowed, it would change the nature of the suit.;