A miscellaneous appellate court has limited jurisdiction to examine the validity of an order granting or refusing an injunction, and does not have the same powers as a court hearing a regular appeal. Therefore, a miscellaneous appellate court does not have the jurisdiction to allow an amendment of the plaint.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the District Judge, Mirzapur dated 21-5-1992, allowing the appeal against the order of the Civil Judge, in the matter of injunction.

( 2 ) PETITIONER, Kailash Nath Singh filed a suit as suit No. 147 of 1991 (Kailash Nath Singh v. Setu Bandh Rameshwar Pratap Singh) for permanent injunction restraining respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from raising construction and changing the nature of the land in dispute, shown as Ka, Kha, Ga, on the ground that plaintiff is co-tenant and the parties are in joint possession over the disputed land. According to the petitioner the land is ancestral property and parties are descendants from common ancestor, Raj Kumar Singh. Plaintiff is coparcener of the joint Hindu Family and disputed land is ancestral property and no partition has taken place. Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendant from changing the nature of the disputed land and from raising construction over the land in dispute was filed. On receipt of the notice, defendant filed written statement and objection for the grant of injunction before the trial court. Trial court passed an order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendant from raising construction over the land in dispute.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 21-8-1991 defendants filed miscellaneous appeal No. 22 of 1991 before the District Judge, Mirzapur who by his order dated 21-5-1992 allowed the appeal. 3a. During the course of the arguments, the petitioner also moved an amendment application for amendment in paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3 of the plaint and in the application for temporary injunction. The further averment of the petitioner was that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have admitted in their written statement that the disputed land was ancestral property and they have not denied the pedigree given in the plaint. The ancestral nature of the property was admitted by the respondent No. 2.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai in support of the writ petition and Sri R. S. Mishra for the contesting respondents. In this writ petition, at the time of admission, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties the writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage in accordance with the High Court Rules.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the counsel for the petitioner, the District Judge has committed a clear illegality in refusing to consider and allow the amendment to be made in the plaint and rejecting amendment in the injunction application. An affidavit in support of such amendment was also filed.

( 6 ) AS regards, the amendment in the plaint, the observation of the District Judge is that it is beyond the competence of a miscellaneous court, as the miscellaneous court has only limited jurisdiction to dispose of the injunction application and to find out whether the judgment passed by the trial court in granting the temporary injunction is right or wrong. Before the District Judge, on behalf of the defendant, reliance was placed on the decision reported in AIR 1982, MP 14. In that case M. P. High Court has considered all the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent before the District Judge and according to the defendant the District Judge, while hearing the appeal, preferred under order 43, Rule 1 (r) CPC, against the order of grant of an interim injunction passed by the trial court, has no jurisdiction to decide an application for amendment of the plaint on merits. In reply to this contention the counsel for the respondents has urged that the District Judge has rightly refused the prayer of amendment in the injunction application and also rightly observed that while considering a miscellaneous appeal the appellate Court can-not allow and amendment in the plaint. He cannot travel beyond the pleas on the basis of which a trial court has passed an order of injunction, one way or the other. If th