Bali Ram vs Harinderpal Singh and others

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—The short point involved in this appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in ranting an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the suit so as to include a further prayer for a decree for possession of the land in dispute in a suit which was originally filed only for permanent injunction when admittedly the plaintiff was in possession of the land in dispute at that time and was dispossessed during the pendency of the suit. It has been ruled in S. Bhagat Singh Vs. Satnam Transport Co. Ltd. and Others, and Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Dept. of Food), New Delhi Vs. Pearl Hosiery Mills and Others, that if a suit for declaration is brought, whereas the plaintiff was entitled to a consequential relief also, then an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to amend the plaint and if after opportunity also, the plaintiff does not amend the plaint, then the suit can be dismissed on the ground that the form of the suit is not correct. The facts of the present case are much better as compared to the two decided cases referred to above. Here, the plaintiff was admittedly in possession when the suit was filed and he was dispossessed only during the pendency of the suit. In this situation, the lower Appellate Court was perfectly justified in granting permission to the plaintiff to amed the plaint to claim relief of possession as well.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed with no orders as to costs. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20-9-1982.