A suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, cannot be amended to include averments regarding title, as it would change the foundation of the suit and give rise to a distinct cause of action.

1. - This is a revision petition of the plaintiff filed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nagour dated 17.1.1998 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

2. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') with the allegations that he is the owner of the suit house described in paras 1 & 2 of the plaint. After construction he has been in the possession of the above house for the last three years. The plaintiff went to Makrana in order to attend his business: Mohanlal came there and informed him that some persons have taken illegal possession of his house. Thereupon the plaintiff came to Nagaur on 20.1.1985 and saw, the defendant in illegal possession of his house. The plaintiff asked him to vacate their possession. The plaintiff also showed his title deed in respect of the above house to the defendant but the latter instead of vacating the illegal possession started to quarrel with him. The plaintiff, therefore, lodged a report at Police Station, Nagaur on 21.1.1985. Thereupon the Police registered a case under Section 453 IPC and after investigation also filed a challan. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the above house did not belong to the plaintiff and they also did not commit any trespass and occupied the house of the plaintiff forcibly.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the house described in paras 1 & 2 of the plaint up to January, 1985.

(ii) Whether the defendant forcibly occupied the house of the plaintiff in the month of January, 1985.

(iii) Relief.

4. It may be stated that the suit was filed on 12.4.1985 and is still pending.

5. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on the ground that the present suit was filed admittedly under Section 6 of the Act. However, both the parties have led evidence regarding title and the trial of the case was not conducted summarily but like a regular suit filed under Section 5 of the Act. The plaintiff, therefore, think it proper that since both the parties have led complete evidence regarding title and possession of the suit property and the trial was not confined to the limit prescribed by Section 6 of the Act, it would be proper that the suit may be allowed to be amended so as to include the averments regarding title etc. in the suit. The plaintiff suggested the intended amendments in the pleading. The application was stoutly resisted by the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff is guilty of latches. If the suit,could not be disposed of up till now, the plaintiff is normally guilty for the same. The defendant denied that he led any evidence regarding title. If the plaintiff is allowed the proposed amendments in his pleading, great prejudice will be caused to the defendant and the suit under Section 6 of the Act will be converted into a regular suit under Section 5 of the Act. The whole nature of the suit and the cause of action would be changed which is not warranted by law.

6. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing both the parties, did not accede to the request made by the plaintiff to allow the proposed amendments; He was of opinion that by the proposed amendments the whole nature of the suit will be changed and would cause prejudice to the defendant. He, therefore, dismissed the above application.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially the plaintiff filed the above suit under Section 6 of the Act and was confident that he would get the relief within reasonable time. However, the suit has not been disposed of so far because both the parties did not follow the summary procedure for such a suit under Section 6 of the Act but led exhaustive evidence in respect of title also. In other words, both the par