ORDER

This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred challenging the order dated 14.02.2023 in Regular Civil Suit No,. RCSA/18/2022 by First Civil Judge, Junior Division Barwah, District West Nimar, Madhya Pradesh, whereby an applications Annexure-P-

2 and Annexure-P-3 under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment in plaint and temporary injunction applications have been rejected.

2. Facts in brief are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a civil Suit vide plaint Exhibit-P-4 for declaration and permanent injunction regarding a piece of land ad-measuring 1.6 feet east to west and 60 feet north to south situated on the east side of the wall of his House No.11 of Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Barwah and restraining the defendant to interfere in the possession of that land through digging pits or otherwise on 04.07.2022. Thereafter, plaintiff sought amendment of the pleadings vide Annexure-P-2 and P-3 for amendment in plaint and application for temporary injunction with a prayer that Paragraph No. 4 (e) inserted after Paragraph-3 of the plaint and pleading previously existing in Paragraph-4 be renumbered as Paragraph No.6 and contents of Paragraph-7 of IA No. 6/2022 Annexure-P-3 be inserted in continuity of the last line of that Paragraph No.4. It was also prayed that for paragraph No.5 of the plaint be renumbered as Paragraph No.7 and the relief as mentioned in Paragraph No.8 be inserted as relief-'c' and present relief -'c' be renumbered as 'd' and relief-'d' be renumbered as relief - 'e'.

3. The application was opposed by the defendant and the trial Court rejected the application with the reason that proposed amendment shall changes the nature of the plaint and report proposed amendment is inconsistently with the original instituted plaint.

4. The order has been assailed submitting that the case was at initial stage and the written statement was also not filed. The findings of the trial Court is perverse and contrary to the law. The relief sought through amendment is such that it entitles the plaintiff to seek other relief and other ground of easement also. Such proposed amendment would not change the nature of the original instituted suit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff relied upon Shyam Narayan Prasad Vs. Krishna Prasad and others reported in 2019 (2) MPLJ 307 and Kanakmal Vs. Nighat Jahah and others reported in 2019(3) MPLJ

292.

6. The relevant Paragraph No.23 of Shyam Narayan Prasad (supra) is being reproduced as under :-

23. ............. It is well settled that the defendant who intends to avail the benefit of this provision must plead that he has taken possession of the property in part performance of the contract.

Perusal of the written statement of the first defendant shows that he has not raised such a plea. Pleadings are meant to give to each side, intimation of the case of the other, so that, it may be met to enable courts to determine what is really at issue between the parties. No relief can be granted to a party without the pleadings.

7. The relevant extract of Knakmal Vs. Nighat Jahah (supra) is that no prejudice would cause to the plaintiff. Courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side.

8. Now we are examining the legality of the impugned order. The plaintiff filed the plaint seeking relief of title holder of the suit land and thereafter sought amendment for relief on the ground of easement of necessity and prescriptive easement. It is settled law that plaintiff as well as defendant can plead inconsistent pleading and ask alternative relief in original pleadings. As per G. Nagamma Vs. -Siromanamma (1996) 2 SCC

95.

9. As regards inconsistent pleadings, the CPC does not prohibit a party from making two or more in consistent set of the allegations. A plaintiff may rely on several different rights alternatively, but they cannot be permitted to plead mutually dest