Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65286 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10131 of 2016 Petitioner :- Shakeela Bano @ Shakeena Beghum And 2 Others Respondent :- District Judge Civil Court And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Tiwari,Ayush Jain,Ram Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- ,Ravi Chandra Srivastava Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. Sri Pramod Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ram Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3 are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 04.10.2016 passed by District Judge, Bhadohi in Civil Revision No.46 of 2016 and order dated 27.5.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Bhadohi on amendment application, Paper No.64Ka, in Original Suit No.279 of 2011.

3. The facts, giving rise to present writ petition, are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction, which was registered as Original Suit No.279 of 2011. After institution of aforesaid suit, the defendants tried to demolish the existing boundary wall from 19.10.2011, which led to filing of amendment application on 13.10.2015 under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the plaint and claiming relief of mandatory injunction.

4. The said application was rejected by the trial Court against which civil revision has been preferred, which has also been rejected by the revisional Court, hence the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below were not justified in rejecting the application on the ground of delay, because it was continuing cause of action which was initiated by defendants on 19.10.2011 and continued till filing of amendment application. According to him, para 4 of the amendment application discloses the cause of action wherein it has been specifically mentioned that demolition of wall on the property in dispute was started from 19.10.2011 which clearly indicates the date of initiation of wrong by the defendants and the relief of mandatory injunction was claimed and the plaint was being amended by the plaintiff. He has relied upon judgment of coordinate bench of this Court rendered in State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors. 2014 (8) ADJ 251 and judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Ragu Thilak D.John vs. S.

Rayappan 2001(2) SCC 472.

6. Sri Srivastava, counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that both the Courts below had rightly rejected the application for amendment on the ground that period provided under Article 58 to the Schedule to the Limitation Act clearly provides three years' period for filing suit of mandatory inunction. According to him, an amendment was sought after period of three years as the application clearly indicates that demolition took place on 19.10.2011 and the application was moved in the year 2015 which was barred by time and it was rightly rejected by the trial Court. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of Apex Court in Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) vs. M/s S.K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 2008 AIR (SC) 2393; Rameshkumar Agarwal vs. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 337; Ravajeetu Builders & Developers vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors. (2009) 10 SCC 84; and Mashyak Grihnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs. Usman Habib Dhuka & Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 485.

7. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The short controversy engaging the attention of the Court is, "whether the amendment moved by plaintiff could be allowed in the light of Article 58 to the Schedule to the Limitation Act as only period of three years has been prescribed for claiming the relief of mandatory injunction?"

9. It is an admitted case of both the parties that the suit was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner in the year 2011 in which relief for permanent injunction was claimed. At the time of filing of suit, wall in dispute was not demol