A.F.R.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Dayanand and 2 others …..Petitioner(s)

Versus Mohan @ Ghure …..Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vivek Singh Shrinet Court No. - 5 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Singh Shrinet, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated

16.11.2022 passed by the trial court i.e. Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, Gorakhpur, rejecting the application for amendment filed by the petitioner in the plaint. Revision against the said order has also been dismissed by order dated 10.04.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Gorakhpur in Civil Revision No. 124 of 2022.

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by the amendment, the petitioner has only changed the relief from mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove their constructions and to hand over the possession to the plaintiff to the prayer for possession of the property in dispute apart from minor corrections in the plaint. The said application has been erroneously rejected on the ground that the application has been filed after a long lapse of time and therefore, the same cannot be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 such amendment cannot be allowed. He further submitted that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit.

5. I have perused the order impugned. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the plaint which is at page no.33 of the paper book is quoted as under:

“1- बसदᯬⒸू डि(cid:7)्ቇी Mandatory Injunction ्ቚडि(cid:11)वादी गኚᮑ कቺख़ यह आदेꖽ鑆 दिदया जावे दिक वे मका攆䄮 जै勂㟆 मुन्दजा(cid:31) लि勂㟆स्ट (ग) मय 攆䄮क्ꖽ鑆ा जቺख़ 攆䄮क्ꖽ鑆ा लि勂㟆स्ट (ख) जै勂㟆 म脱腝 भी बᯬⒸगं हᯬⒸा से ्ቚदቦኌꖽ鑆(cid:11) है पᯬⒸ से अप攆䄮ा कब्जा दख勂㟆 जቺख़ दलिख攆䄮ी पडि,मी पह勂㟆ी मंजिज勂㟆 के कमᯬⒸे पᯬⒸ एवं दसू ᯬⒸी मंजिज勂㟆 के पडि,मी उ्ቈᯬⒸी कमᯬⒸे पᯬⒸ (cid:11)攆䄮हा है व बदिकया दिहस्से पᯬⒸ वादी गኚᮑ के सा瞫誋 मुश्(cid:11)का(cid:31) ह ै कቺख़ उठाकᯬⒸ मका攆䄮 लि勂㟆स्ट (ग)

जै勂㟆 पᯬⒸ (cid:11)攆䄮हा कब्जा दख勂㟆 वादी गኚᮑ कቺख़ दे दवे े ।"

6. The said relief has been sought to be substituted /amended by the relief as quoted in the amendment application at page no. 39 and the same is quoted as under:

“यह दिक बसदᯬⒸु डि(cid:7)्ቅी दख勂㟆 बहक वादी गኚᮑ लिख勂㟆ा⸃䁥 ्ቚडि(cid:11)वादी गኚᮑ, ्ቚडि(cid:11)वादी गኚᮑ कቺख़ आदेशिꖽ鑆(cid:11) कᯬⒸ दिदया जावे दिक वे मका攆䄮 जै勂㟆 मुन्दजा(cid:31) लि勂㟆स्ट (ग) मय 攆䄮क्ꖽ鑆ा जቺख़ 攆䄮क्ꖽ鑆ा लि勂㟆स्ट (ख) जै勂㟆 वाद प㚲┛ म脱腝 बᯬⒸगं हᯬⒸा से दቦኌꖽ鑆(cid:11) है पᯬⒸ से ्ቚडि(cid:11)वादी गኚᮑ का कब्जा दख勂㟆 जቺख़ दलिख攆䄮ी पडि,मी पह勂㟆ी मंजिज勂㟆 के कमᯬⒸे पᯬⒸ एंव दसू ᯬⒸी मंजिज勂㟆 के पडि,मी उ्ቈᯬⒸी कमᯬⒸा पᯬⒸ से कब्जा दख勂㟆 ्ቚडि(cid:11)वादी गኚᮑ हट वाकᯬⒸ न्याया勂㟆य ्ቛाᯬⒸा दि攆䄮቗ኋा(cid:31)रिᯬⒸ(cid:11) समय के अन्दᯬⒸ वादी गኚᮑ कቺख़ जायदाद 攆䄮जा⒚⓰ पᯬⒸ कब्जा दख勂㟆 दिद勂㟆वा दिदया जाय। यदिद ्ቚडि(cid:11)वादी गኚᮑ न्याया勂㟆य ्ቛाᯬⒸा दि攆䄮቗ኋा(cid:31)रिᯬⒸ(cid:11) समय के अन्दᯬⒸ कब्जा दख勂㟆 वादी गኚᮑ कቺख़ 攆䄮हⷘ⺒ दे(cid:11)े है (cid:11)ቺख़ उस सूᯬⒸ(cid:11) म脱腝 न्याया勂㟆य अमी 攆䄮 अ瞫誋वा वकी勂㟆 कदिम्቞ᯬⒸ ्ቛाᯬⒸा कब्जा

दख勂㟆 दिद勂㟆वा दिदया जावे।"

7. I do not find any change in the nature of the suit as the relief in substance is same.

8. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6, the said amendment could not be allowed, is also misconceived. The suit is of the year 1997 which is pre amendment and therefore, amended proviso will not apply to the suit in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of State Bank of Hyderabad v. Town Municipal Council reported in reported in (2007) 1 SCC 765. Paragraph nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under:

“5. Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code reads, thus:

"The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as m