Halima Khatoon vs Ashgar Mian And Others

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Instant petition is filed for quashing the order dated 06.04.2020 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division) cum Additional Munsif, Giridih in Original Suit No.84 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the petition filed for amendment in the plaint, has been partly allowed.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in the original suit which has been filed for right, title and interest and for temporary injunction against the defendant from interfering in the suit property. The plaintiffs filed the following proposed amendment:-

“The defendant Nos.1 to 3 despite knowing the fact as told by the plaintiff that a civil suit along with permanent and temporary injunction prayer has been filed, they continued the construction works over the part of suit land during the pendency of suit, a photograph of ongoing construction works has been attached that my kindly be treated as part of the plaint”.

The learned Court below rejected the amendment petition however, photographs which was filed along with petition was permitted to be treated as part and parcel of the plaint. Being aggrieved by the order, present petition has been filed.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that only part of the prayer for amendment has been allowed, with respect to the remaining part the amendment will not alter the nature of suit and is only explanatory in nature.

Reliance has been placed in the case of Sampath Kumar  Vs. Ayyakannu & Another Versus Ayyakannu & Another reported in (2002) 7 SCC 559

It is a Cardinal principle of pleadings as set out in Order VI Rule 1 of the C.P.C. that every pleading shall contain, a concise form of material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be but not the evidence by which they had to be proved. The facts sought to be introduced in the plaint by way of amendment do not come strictly with within the meaning of pleading.

Under the circumstance, the civil miscellaneous petition is dismissed.