Amendment of pleadings must be carried out strictly in consonance with the order allowing such application.

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.

2. The application of the present petitioners for striking off unauthorised pleadings, which is stated to be beyond the order of allowing the amendment, was dismissed, is impugned in the present revision petition.

3. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration, in which an application was filed for amendment of the plaint. The application for amendment prayed a limited relief wherein the plaintiffs wanted to ammend the plaint by incorporating the relief of possession in addition to the relief of declaration and intended to make consequential amendments in the other paragraphs of the plaint. This application of the plaintiffs, which was opposed by the defendents in the suit, was allowed by the learned trial court vide its order dated 14.5.1994. The bare reading of the order dated 14.5.1994 shows that the amendment which was allowed was very restricted in its nature and scope. The following observations of the trial court would substantiate this fact:

"The plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and now he wants to add the relief of possession and wants to make consequent amendments in the plaint. The application was opposed by the defendants, on the grounds that application is belted one and the plea was open to the plaintiffs earlier."

"Hence, the amendment can also be a this fact reads determination as to whether the civil jurisdiction or not at the stage of amendment is to be seem is whether by amendment any prejudice would be caused to defendent as stated above by adding relief of possession t hcause of action would be remain to be same. For the inconvenience the defendent can well be entitled for costs. It is well settled that more delay is no ground for rejecting the application. In view of the matter, I allow the application subject to payment of 100/- as costs."

This order was challenged by the defendents in the suit in a revision petition before this Court which was registered as Civil Revision No. 2994 of 1994 but the same was dismissed in limine. In furtherance to the order of amendent, the plaintiffs had placed an ammended plaint on record, which as contended was annexed to the application for ammendment. However, before filing the written statement to this amended plaint, the defendents filed the present application praying that unathourised amendedment carried out by the plaintiffs...........in the amended plaint should be struck off. This application was opposed mainly on the ground that the order of amendment inter-se the parties had attained finalty by dismissal of the earlier revision and therefore, the defendents were stopped from challenging the correctness of the amended plaint.

4. It is settled law that the amendment must be carried out strictly in consonance with the order allowing such application. No party can have the liberty to introduce a case or amendement which was not specifically permitted by the order of the Court.

5. There can be no liberal approach in this regard because the party against whom such an application is allowed is required to meet the case as stated in the application read in conjunction with the order of the Court. The proposed amended plaint would not be of any consequence or concern of the other party, at that stage when the application itself is being considered, more so when an order allowing the amendment does not permit specifically that such proposed amended plaint annexed is directed to be taken on record. In the present case it is an admitted fact and is also clear from the language of the order, that the proposed amended plaint was never directed to be taken on record by the order allowing amended application. It is also not disputed before me that the plea of possession based on mortgage was neither averred in the application nor was it argued. Consequently, it does not even find any mention in the order of the learned trial Court dated 1.