The main legal point established is that the trial court should only decide whether an amendment falls within the four corners of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and should not conduct a roving enquiry into the veracity of the contents of the amendment.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

A. Quash the impugned order dtd.:24/9/2016 on I.A.No.5 passed in OS.No.217/2012 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Banhatti (Annexure-F) as the same is illegal, arbitrary and without the authority of law.

B. Direct the trial Court to allow the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of plaint consequent upon quashing the order at Annexure-F.

C. Direct the respondent to pay the costs of these proceedings.

2. O.S.No.217/2012 had been filed seeking for permanent injunction restraining the defendant therein who is respondent herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property by the plaintiff.

3. While the said suit was pending, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC came to be filed to bring on record certain subsequent events namely the demolition of construction put up by the petitioner on the suit schedule property of the respondent by using JCB and on that basis the petitioner wanted to insert certain pleadings as also additional reliefs of mandatory injunction to restore the shop which was objected to by the respondent.

4. The trial Court after hearing the matter dismissed the said application holding that the defendant had specifically denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Such being the case, the question of granting mandatory injunction would not at all arise and in view of the defence set forth by the defendant in the written statement the proposed amendment will bring about a new case which is the order under challenged before this Court.

5. Sri.S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while considering an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment, the trial Court cannot refer to and or consider the merits of the amendment. In the present case, the amendment being one to bring the subsequent events on record and the relief being sought for on the basis of the subsequent events the amendment ought to have been allowed and the merits be subject to the trial in the suit. On these grounds the petition is required to be allowed. While doing so, the impugned order to be quashed and the amendment application be allowed.

6. Though the respondent has been served, none has entered appearance.

7. Heard Sri.S.C.Bhuti, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the papers.

8. Admittedly the suit filed was one for injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. In the said suit an amendment application was filed to state that the construction which has been put up by the plaintiff had been demolished by the respondent and it is in that background a mandatory injunction was sought for to restore the construction by supplying necessary factual averments in support of the said prayer.

9. The trial Court considering the defence stated in the written statement rejected the application on account of the defendant having denied the plaintiff being in possession of the property. In my considered opinion the trial Court could not conduct a roving enquiry as to veracity of the contents of the amendment. What the trial Court was required to decide was only with respect to whether the amendment falls within the four corners of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.

10. The amendment to bring on record the subsequent event cannot be said to bring out a change in the nature of the suit. In the present case, the earlier pleading was as regards the right of the plaintiff to be in occupation of the premises and it is the Plaintiff's case that the same was allegedly interfered with by the defendant by demolishing the construction put up. Though it can be said that the plaintiff could have filed another suit seeking for such mandatory relief it is also trite law that all the reliefs sought for the plaintiff ought to be decided in the same suit for avoiding multiplicity of suits by allowing the amendment application.

11. Ap