BAI MIRAT WD O MOHANLAL Vs. VYAS PRAHLADJI MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision application the petitioners are chall- enging the order dated 13/09/1982 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) Vijapur rejecting the amendment application of the petitioners.

(2.) The amendment to the plaint sought by the present petitioners consisted of adding defendants Nos. 3 and 4 whose names and addresses are given in the application and who are said to have purchased the suit fields according to the plaintiffs they came to know about the fact of the suit fields having been sold to the two persons who are sought to be joined as defendants Nos. 3 and 4 from the written statement filed by defendant No. 1. In the said amendment application some portion of the plaint was also sought to be amended; so also the prayer clause was proposed to be amended as a consequential relief.

(3.) Mr. Soparkar the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the amendment sought has become necessary is view of the averments made in the written statement that the suit fields have been transfered to the two persons who are now sought to be joined as defendants Nos. 3 and 4. Mr. Soparkar has also urged that the nature of the suit cannot be said to have been changed by bringing in the plea that the plaintiffs be handed over possession of the suit fields although originally the contention was that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit fields and an injunction was sought restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit fields. Mr. Soparkar has urged that the original contention of the plaintiffs being in possession of the suit fields was based on the fact that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 were in joint possession of the suit fields and hence the plaintiffs could be said to be as much in possession of the suit fields as the defendant No. 1. According to him now that it has been brought on record that the defendant No. 1 has transferred possession of the suit fieds to the persons who are sought to be impleaded as defendants Nos. 3 and 4 the plaintiffs had no option but to ask the relief of obtaining possession of the suit fields from either of the defendants who may be ultimately found to be in possession thereof.