A party can obtain leave from the Court to include reliefs omitted at the time of filing the suit, as per Order II Rule 2 (3) C.P.C., to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendant is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and injunction, stating that the suit schedule property is a vacant site and he is the owner of the suit property and as the revision petitioner/defendant attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also questioned the title, he filed the suit for the reliefs, as stated above. The respondent/plaintiff also filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17 of C.P.C., within three months from the date of filing of the suit to add the relief of recovery of possession, stating that, after the filing of the suit, the revision petitioner trespassed into the suit property and put up a house construction, despite objections raised by the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the prayer for the relief of injunction has to be deleted and the prayer for recovery of possession has to be included. That application was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that even on the date of filing of the suit, the revision petitioner had completed construction in the suit property and the respondent was also aware of the same and to prove the said fact, the revision petitioner also filed nine documents, which are marked as Exs.R-1 to R-9, before the Court below, which would prove that there was a house construction, prior to the filing of the suit and the revision petitioner also got electricity connection and was assessed to property tax in respect of that house. Therefore, on the date of filing of the suit itself, the respondent had cause of action to seek the relief of recovery of possession, and he deliberately omitted to file the suit for recovery of possession and prayed for injunction. Hence, subsequently, the respondent cannot amend the prayer by including the relief of recovery of possession, which was available to him, when the plaint was filed. Hence, the Court below ought not to have allowed the application. The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment reported in AIR (1950) Mad 32 in the matter of [Bhagavatula Gopalakrishnamurthi and others Vs. Dhulipalla Sreedhara Rao and another] in support of his contention.

4. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that under Order II, Rule 2 CPC, when the plaintiff has asked for various reliefs and omitted to ask for such reliefs in the suit filed by him, he cannot afterwards sue in respect of the relief, which was omitted by him or relinquished by him, except, with the leave of the court. Therefore, the only option open to the respondent is to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit to include the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The Court below, without considering these aspects, allowed the application.

5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Admittedly, the suit was filed for declaration and for injunction. It is alleged by the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint that on 01.03.2010, the revision petitioner attempted to interfere with his possession of the property, by digging a pit and that was prevented and therefore, he filed the suit for declaration. The suit was filed on 06.04.2010, and the application to amend the plaint was filed on 27.07.2010. In the affidavit filed in support of the application for amendment, it is stated by the respondent/plaintiff that on 01.03.2010, the revision petitioner/defendant attempted to dig a pit and after the filing of the suit, despite objections raised by the respondent, the revision petitioner trespassed into the suit property in the month of May and put up a house construction. On that basis, the respondent sought for the deletion of the prayer of injunction and for inclusion of the prayer of recovery of possession. Though the revision petitioner filed nine documents to prov