ORDER

This petition by defendant No.9 in O.S.No.1645/2012 on the file of the LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [for short, ‘the trial Court] is directed against the impugned order passed on IA No.4, whereby the said application filed by respondent No.1 - plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed by the trial Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

3. For the order proposed, notice to the respondents is dispensed with subject to the risk of the petitioner.

4. The material on record discloses that the first respondent - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner – defendant No.9 and other defendants for declaration, injunction and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule immovable property. In the said suit, the petitioner has been arrayed as defendant No.9 and he is contesting the suit. After commencement of trial, respondent No.1 – plaintiff filed the instant application seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating/adding a relief of possession along with corresponding pleadings in this regard inter alia contending that subsequent to institution of the suit and during its pendency, the defendants had illegally and high handedly trespassed and dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit schedule property which necessitated the plaintiff to seek amendment of the plaint by incorporating the relief of possession and introducing necessary pleadings in this regard. The said application having been opposed by the petitioner, the trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing IA No.4 by holding as under:

"7. POINT NO.1 :- I have gone through the contents of I.A.No.4, objection statement and other records. It is noticed that the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for Declaration and Injunction. The defendants appeared before this Court and submitted their written Statements. On the basis of the same, my Predecessor in the office has framed Issues No.1 to 7. Thereafter, the matter is posted for evidence. The plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents and the matter is deferred for cross-examination. In the meantime, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.3 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The same is dismissed by this Court. In the meantime, the plaintiff has filed the present application seeking amendment of plaint.

8. It is the case of the plaintiff that, during pandemic

2019, the defendants have trespassed into the suit schedule property. At that point of time, the Courts were closed and he could not appear before the court and file necessary application for amendment. The suit is for Declaration and Injunction. Subsequently, the defendants have trespassed into the suit schedule property. Thereby, the plaintiff is going to seek the consequential relief of possession. On the contrary, the defendants seriously objected the said application by filing objection statement and contended that, after lapse of 10 years the plaintiff has filed the amendment application. It is not maintainable in the eye of law. In order to drag the proceedings the plaintiff has filed the present application.

9. On going through the entire records and amendment sought by the plaintiff, it is noticed that, the plaintiff is going to amend the plaint at para 10(A) stating that the defendants have trespassed into the suit schedule property, thereby the plaintiff is seeking to amend the plaint for consequential relief of Possession. It is not doubt, the present suit is filed in the year 2012. When the matter is set down for cross- examination of PW.1, at that stage the plaintiff has feed the present application. At the time of discussing the amendment sought by the plaintiff, the court has to take liberal view. Here in this case, the defendants have specifically stated in the objection statement that the amendment sought by the plaintiff is