What is the court's power to allow amendment of pleadings if it might oust its own jurisdiction? What is the consequence of a belated application for amendment of pleadings? How to determine the maintainability of a suit for injunction when the plaintiff is not in possession?

Key Points: - The suit was for perpetual injunction and damages concerning irrigation plots and a well (!) . - The plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to add a prayer for possession, which was rejected by the Munsiff as belated [17019590600001]. - The lower appellate court rejected the amendment application because it would oust the civil court's jurisdiction [17019590600002]. - The High Court held that a court can allow an amendment even if it results in the suit becoming beyond its jurisdiction, in which case the plaint should be returned to the proper court [17019590600009]. - The court disagreed with the Madras High Court ruling that no court will permit an amendment that ousts its own jurisdiction (!) . - A belated application for amendment should not be rejected solely on that ground; costs can be imposed on the defendant [17019590600010]. - The court found that rulings cited regarding injunctions were not authority for suing for injunction only when not in possession (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed, and the case was sent back to the first court to allow the amendment, subject to the plaintiff paying costs [17019590600011]. - If costs are not paid, the appeal would be dismissed [17019590600011].

What is the court's power to allow amendment of pleadings if it might oust its own jurisdiction?

What is the consequence of a belated application for amendment of pleadings?

How to determine the maintainability of a suit for injunction when the plaintiff is not in possession?