Budihal R.B., J.

This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff praying to quash the impugned order dated 21-11-2014 passed in O.S. No. 3355 of 2007 by the XL Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, who rejected the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, which is produced at Annexure-G.

2. Petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit seeking permanent injunction to restrain the respondents/defendants or anyone acting on their behalf from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property or in any way carry on any excavation work by encroaching upon the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint and to restrain defendants 1 to 4 from creating any clandestine documents such as joint development agreement, lease mortgage, sale or otherwise in respect of the property and to restrain the defendant 5 from issuing sanctioned plan and licence in favour of defendants 1 to 4 in respect of property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint.

The petitioner herein has also filed an amendment application under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC praying the Court to permit the petitioner to add paragraphs 18-A, 18-B, 18-C and 18-D after paragraph 18, the proposed amendment, which is mentioned in the application. In the prayer column also the petitioner has sought to add paragraphs (a1) for declaration of title declaring the that plaintiff and children Neha, Anjum and Muddasir Ahmed are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, (a2) for consequential relief of possession directing defendants 1 to 4 to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, failing which the possession of the property be handed over through the process of the Court, (a3) for mandatory injunction directing demolition and removal of the construction put up by defendants 1 to 4 on the suit schedule property. The said application is also supported by the affidavit of the GPA Holder of the plaintiff, wherein it is stated the that averments made in the plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel of the affidavit the that plaintiff is the absolute owner in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and defendants 1 to 4 do not has e any manner of right, title and interest or possession over the same. Defendants 1 to 4 attempted to illegally and highhandedly encroach and trespass upon the suit schedule property in collusion with defendant 5 and as such, plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit.

In the amendment application, there is also pleading that recently a few weeks back taking advantage of the long pendency of the matter and various subsequent events that have transpired during the pendency of the above suit subsequent to its institution, in particular, the fact the that suit schedule property has fallen vacant, the defendants 1 to 4 have no manner of right, title interest or possession over the suit schedule property or any portion thereof, have illegally and highhandedly trespassed and encroached upon the suit schedule property and are illegally attempting to put up illegal and unauthorised construction thereon. It is further mentioned that in view of the fact that proposed amendment is necessitated on account of additional subsequent events and plaintiff was not in a position to put forth these pleadings before commencement of trial and hence, prays to allow the application.

The said application has been resisted by the defendants by filing objection statement; defendants 2 and 4 have filed their separate objection statement to the application. The sum and substance of the objection statement the that General Power Attorney holder is a name lender to prosecute the cases on behalf of Smt. Zareena and her children, this is nothing but an abuse of the Court. There are no bona fides in the application, the averment the that application is filed only to correct the error in regard to the