RANCHI, India, Nov. 13 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Oct. 13:

1. The petitioner is the defendant and the instant civil misc. petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in Title Suit No. 45/2009, whereby and whereunder, an amendment petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC has been allowed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and declaration that the execution of Sale Deed No. 1858 dated 26.04.2006 was illegal, inoperative, fraudulent and void.

3. On 11.12.2023 a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiff for amendment in the relief portion to include the following amendments:

i. A decree for perpetual/permanent injunction be passed and thereby the defendant no. 1 be restrained perpetually/ permanently from disturbing /obstructing the peaceful possession of plaintiffs over the lands in suit;

ii. Any construction/ structure or constructions /structures raised by defendant no. 1 over the lands in suit be demolished and removed so that peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the lands in suit be not disturbed or obstructed in any manner and in para-20a of sub-para(b) be added as follows:

"and the relief for perpetual/permanent injunction is valued at Rs.1000/- and accordingly Advalorem court fee is being paid."

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer for recovery of possession and perpetual/permanent injunction was nowhere pleaded in the plaint. These two prayers have been made at the fag end of trial. In 2010 the written statement was filed. At the argument stage, the amendment petition has been allowed.

5. There is no ground to show that due diligence was exercised by the plaintiff as required under proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the main grievance is to incorporate the relief of recovery and possession. So far as the permanent injunction is concerned, prayer for title is made and so there is no bar to raise the plea of permanent injunction.

7. So far as the recovery of possession is concerned, if a party is not in possession and is claiming title over a property, the claim of title will be barred in view of proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The amendment pertaining to recovery and possession is not, per se, barred, if the plaintiff is able to show that he has been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and, therefore, in such circumstance, the recovery can be allowed. As the amendment seeking recovery of possession has been made at the fag end of trial, therefore, the defendant will have a right of rebuttal.

8. For the reasons as stated above, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. However, since the amendment has been allowed with regard to recovery of possession, the defendant/petitioner will have a right of rebuttal.

This civil misc. petition, accordingly, stands disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.