1985 Supreme(MP) 375

R. K. Varma, J.
Mitra Mandal Sah. Sanstha v. Dr. R. C. Jain.
C. R. No. 155 of 1984 (I); Decided on 5-8-1985.

Headnote:Civil P. C., 1908-O. 6, R. 17 and O.39, Rr. 1 and 2-application for temporary injunction dismissed-plaintiff can add prayers for restoration of possession and declaration of title-nature of suit does not change.

       

        The material facts giving rise to this revision are as follows. The plaintiff initially filed the present suit for permanent injection restraining the defendant from interfering with its possession of the suit plot. The plaintiff also submitted an application for temporary injection restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff of the suit plot during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit plot. The order passed by the trial Court was affirmed in appeal and revision. Thereafter the plaintiff submitted an application under Order 6, rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment, of the plaint. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff claimed relief of declaration of his title to the suit plot and possession thereof in case it is held that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit plot at the time of the filing of the suit. The trial Court has dismissed the application for amendment submitted by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff has submitted this revision.

       

        Held: The trial Court committed a patent error in rejecting the application for amendment on the ground that by the proposed amendment the nature of the plaintiffs suit will be totally changed According to the plaintiff it was in possession of the suit plot when it filed the suit. The plaintiff application for temporary injection has been dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit plot at the time of the filing of the suit. This has accessioned the making of the application for amendment claiming relief of possession and also declaration of title to the suit plot. The proposed amendment is necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties to the suit. The trial Court was, therefore, not justified in rejecting the application for amendment. The order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. Revision allowed.