The main legal point established is that applications for amendment of the plaint and impleading additional parties must be considered in light of the limitation period for seeking possession and the potential change in the character of the suit.

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Plaintiff in O.S. No. 3645/1993 (P.Mis.20/1991) is questioning the correctness and legality of the order passed by the Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dated 2.1.2015 Annexure 'T' wherein three interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff under order 1 Rule 10(2) of the CPC (I.A. No. 22 and IA. No. 24) and for amendment of the plaint (IA. No. 25) came to be dismissed.

2. I have heard Sri A.S. Srinivasan, party appearing in person and Smt. Manjula N. Tejaswi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, Sri G.B. Nandish Gowda appearing on behalf of Sri R.B. Sadashivappa for respondent No. 4 and Sri. Padma Prasad appearing on behalf of Sri. G. Devaraj for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are served and unrepresented. By consent of party in person and learned advocates appearing for respondents, these writ petitions are taken up for consideration for final disposal.

3. Petitioner herein has filed a petition in P.Mis.20/1991 to sue as an indigent person. Said petition having been allowed it was ordered to be converted into suit. Accordingly, O.S. No. 3645/1993 came to be registered, which suit has been filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 187,60,51,945/- with interest @ 15% from the date of suit till date of payment contending inter alia that plaintiff had been allotted an industrial shed and he has been dispossessed contrary to the terms agreed to under the lease cum sale agreement and as such he is entitled for the damages to be paid by first respondent-defendant. On service of suit summons, defendants have appeared, filed their written statements and have also denied the averments made in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the industrial shed which was allotted to the plaintiff came to be re-allotted to proposed defendant No. 4 on 1.10.1994 and a lease cum sale agreement also came to be executed on 20.10.1994 in his favour and thereafter, a sale deed was also executed on 7.4.2005. Proposed 4th defendant has sold said industrial shed in favour of the 5th defendant.

4. During the pendency of above said suit, plaintiff has filed three interlocutory applications as already noticed herein above and the said applications were resisted by defendants by filing detailed statement of objections. Trial Court while adjudicating these applications under the impugned order dated 2.1.2015 has held that consideration of I.A. No. 25 would have a bearing on considering the prayer made in I.A. No. 22 and I.A. No. 24 and after arriving at a conclusion that prayer sought for in I.A. No. 25 was to the effect that plaintiff intended to raise additional plea and incorporate additional prayer for seeking delivery of possession of industrial shed in question, has proceeded to examine said prayer and found that it is highly belated and plaintiff had not complied with the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court and accordingly, rejected the same and consequently rejected I.A. No. 22 and I.A. No. 24 for impleading also. Hence, these writ petitions.

5. It is the contention of Sri. A.S. Srinivasan, party in person that trial Court has committed a serious error in rejecting the applications, in as much as, the event of dispossession of plaintiff from the industrial shed which was allotted to him was during the pendency of the suit and said subsequent event was required to be brought on record and as such, trial Court ought to have permitted plaintiff to raise a plea in this regard as also permitted him to incorporate additional prayer seeking delivery of possession of the industrial shed. He would also submit that on account of industrial shed having been surreptiously allotted by the first defendant in favour of proposed 4th defendant and 4th defendant in turn having sold in favour of 5th defendant, they are all necessary and proper parties and said act of allotment and selling having taken place at the behest of proposed defendant Nos. 2 and 3, they are also necessary and pro