Amendments to pleadings post-trial commencement are not permissible unless due diligence is shown, ensuring they do not alter the fundamental character of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Romesh Verma, J.

The present petition arises out of order, as passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Solan, dated 10.01.2022, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been ordered to be rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit under Sections 38 and 39 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction. It has been averred in the plaint that the suit property i.e Bunglow No.17, Survey No.24, Dagshai Cantt. Dagshai, Kumarhatti, Tehsil and District Solan, H.P. was purchased by the plaintiff with his real brother Sh. Tejwant Singh Cheema, husband of the defendant Smt. Raj Cheema and the sale deed was duly registered in the joint names of both plaintiff and the husband of the defendant. After the death of Sh. Tejwant Singh Cheema, the share of the property was inherited by the defendant and his daughters, who are presently living in abroad, being his class one legal heirs. After the purchase of the suit property, the plaintiff is residing regularly in the said property and is dealing with the concerned government department and Dagshai Cantonment office. Since the suit property is joint between the parties, so the defendant has no legal right to change the nature of the suit land by raising any construction on the best and specific portion of the suit land. Further, it has been averred that the defendant has no right to create charge on the suit land. Therefore, the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff against the present the defendant.

3. The suit has been contested by the defendant/respondent by filing written statement, raising preliminary objections with respect to maintainability, cause of action etc. On merits, all the averments, as made in the plaint, have been refuted and it has been averred that the suit is vexatious, false, therefore, it is liable to be rejected.

4. It will be pertinent to mention here that the present petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit on 14.11.2018 and the defendant/respondent filed written statement on 07.01.2019. Learned trial Court framed the issues on 20.08.2019 and thereafter, when the case was fixed for evidence of the parties, an application for amendment of the plaint has been instituted by the present petitioner/plaintiff. As per averments, as made in the application, it has been averred that after passing of status quo order, as passed by learned trial Court, the present defendant put locks on the part of the undivided suit property with the sole intention to oust the petitioner/plaintiff from the suit property for all times to come. The petitioner has placed on record the photographs in order to demonstrate the said contention. Since, the suit property is joint between the parties and the same has not been partitioned by metes and bounds, therefore, no co-owner has legal right to oust the other co-owner by adopting forcible means as the respondent has done by placing locks on the parts of the undivided suit property.

5. The said application has been contested by the respondent by filing a detailed reply. It has been averred in the reply that the present application has been filed in order to prolong the litigation indefinitely and the petitioner/plaintiff is harassing an old lady who is 87 years old. It has been stated in the reply that application has been filed for the amendment of plaint, after framing of issues when various opportunities were granted to the plaintiff to a