Imperative amendments for proper adjudication, which do not cause prejudice to the other party, should not be refused.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioners have challenged order dated 17.07.2020 passed by learned Munsiff, Kulgam, whereby their application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint has been rejected.

2. It appears that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit before the trial court seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants for restraining them from laying the roof top of their residential house towards the land of the plaintiffs falling under Survey No.1243 situated at Bogund Tehsil Qaimoh District Kulgam. According to the plaintiffs, they are owners in possession of land measuring 01 kanal 04 marlas falling under Survey No.1243 situated at Bogund Tehsil Qaimoh District Kulgam. It is averred in the plaint that the defendants, who have their land adjacent to the land of the plaintiffs, started raising construction of roof top of their residential house towards the land of the plaintiffs which was objected to by the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, if the defendants succeed in laying the roof top towards the land of the plaintiffs, it will cause heavy damage to their land.

3. The defendants in their written statement claimed that defendant No.4 has raised construction of her house in Survey No.1244 which is adjacent to the suit land. According to the defendants, defendant No.4 has raised construction in her own land and, as such, the plaintiffs have no right to object to the same. It has been claimed that the construction raised by defendant No.4 does not affect the rights of the plaintiffs.

4. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint. By way of proposed amendment, the plaintiffs sought incorporation of certain corrections in para 2 of the plaint by pleading that adjacent to the land of the plaintiffs, the defendants have their land under Survey No.1244. In para 2 of the original plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that the defendants have also their land in the aforesaid survey number i.e., Survey No.1243 and by way of amendment, they want to plead that the land of the defendants is located adjacent to the land of the plaintiffs in Survey No.1244.

5. By virtue of the impugned order passed by the trial court, the amendment sought by the plaintiffs has been rejected on the ground that the plaintiffs are trying to withdraw the admission that the defendants own land in Survey No.1243, which, according to the learned trial court, cannot be allowed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

7. Through the medium of proposed amendment, the plaintiffs only want to clarify that the land of the defendants, which is adjacent to their land, is located in Survey No.1244, though in the original plaint they have stated that 'the defendants have also their land in the aforesaid survey number, meaning thereby Survey No.1243'. It is not the case of the defendants that they own any land in survey No.1243. They have specifically pleaded in the written statement that their land is situated in Survey No.1244, which is adjacent to the land of the plaintiffs. Same is the case of the plaintiffs except that they have inadvertently mentioned that the land of the defendants is also situated in the same survey number.

8. There is no dispute between the parties that their respective lands are located adjacent to each other. The plaintiffs by way of proposed amendment are only seeking to clarify this position and confirm the fact pleaded by the defendants that their land is situated in Survey No.1244. By doing so, the plaintiffs are not withdrawing any admission, as has been held by the learned trial court in the impugned order.

9. It is a settled law that the amendments which are imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case and which do not cause any prejudice to the other side should not be refused. In the instant case, the plaintiffs by way o