JUDGMENT

Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioners, who are defendants in O.S. No. 15 of 2015, are aggrieved of order dated 17.03.2018 by which amendment in the plaint has been permitted.

2. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the original relief sought in the plaint cannot be substituted by an altogether new relief. Contention raised is that it would change the cause of action for instituting the suit.

3. Title Suit No. 15 of 2015 (renumbered as O.S. No. 15 of 2015) has been instituted by Shri Krishna Singh for the following reliefs :

(a) For a decree for restoration and/or recovery of possession of the plaint schedule premises by evicting the defendants there form may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

(b) For a decree permitting the plaintiff to separate his property by erecting wall in between the property of plaintiff and defendant 1st set.

(c) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from any further work over the suit property to change the nature and character thereof to create multiplicity of proceedings.

(d) For Receiver

(e)For cost of the suit

(f) For any other or further relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be found entitled to under law.

4. In the suit before issues were settled, an application for the amendment in the plaint was filed. This application has been allowed by the impugned order dated 17.03.2018. The plaintiff has taken a plea that the relief portion in the plaint was not properly framed and therefore, he has filed the application for the following amendments :

(I) To delete relief prayed for under clause (b) (c) and (d) of the plaint.

(II) To add and insert the following relief as relief no. (b) under para no. 21 of the plaint.

(b) For permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering in, and ousting from, the possession of plaintiff over the suit and described in schedule A of the plaint and also from objecting to the construction of separation wall to be constructed by plaintiff for separating his property i.e. the suit and from the property of defendants.

5. A glance at the original reliefs sought in the plaint and the proposed amendment would disclose that the plaintiff through amendment is not trying to incorporate an altogether new relief, rather the reliefs as framed in the plaint now have been re-framed and composed. Through the proposed amendment the plaintiff is seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants and for restraining the defendants from objecting to construction of a separation wall over the suit land. These reliefs have also been made originally in the plaint, but, of course, under different clauses.

6. Not only the application for amendment was preferred before the suit has gone for trial, evidently the proposed amendment would not cause prejudice to the defendants nor would change the nature of the suit and while so, the cause of action for instituting the suit shall also not change.

7. Viewed thus, challenge to the impugned order dated 17.03.2018 fails and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

8. The defendants shall be permitted to file additional written statement, however, confined to the extent amendment in the plaint has been allowed.