Dhaniram Kushwah vs State of M.P. and Others

S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 10-04-2012(Annexure P-1) passed by trial Court.

By the aforesaid order, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in regard to amendment in the plaint. The petitioner sought amendment to the effect that during pendency of the suit proceedings defendants no. 2 and 3 sold the land in favour of Hariom Kushwah and he was trying to raise construction over the land. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that there is already ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. Hence, the petitioner-plaintiff can institute proceedings for breach of injunction.

The amendment sought by the petitioner-plaintiff is in regard to subsequent event. The Court granted injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff vide order dated 25-01-2012 and the defendants No. 2 and 3 were restrained in transferring the land during pendency of the suit. Admittedly, if the defendants transferred the land then it would amount breach of injunction. For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner-plaintiff has a remedy to file proceedings for breach of injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of CPC. Apart from this, in accordance with the provisions of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, the principle of lis pendency would be applicable. Hence, in my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction. However, the petitioner can avail the remedy available to him as mentioned earlier in the order. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.