Kamlaben Bhimjibhai Dave through Power of Attorney Holder vs Dhameliya Vallabhbhai Dahyabhai and Another

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.3.2009, passed below Exhibit-55, by the Principal Civil Judge,Palitana, in Regular Civil Suit No. 107 of 2005, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Exhibit-55 application for amendment in the prayer.

The short facts of this case are that the Petitioner had purchased an agricultural Plot No. 48 from the Respondent No. 1. Thereafter the Respondent No. 1 asked the Petitioner to vacate the land in question, since the same was sold to the Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner therefore filed Regular Civil Suit No. 107 of 2005 before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Palitana, for permanent injunction. The Petitioner also filed Exhibit-5 application for interim injunction. The learned Judge has granted stay. During the pendency of the suit, the Petitioner requested the Mamlatdar,Palitana to verify and inform the Petitioner whether any such agreement dated 20.11.2004, is registered or is entered into the revenue record or not. The Mamlatdar informed the Petitioner that no such document is registered or entered in the register.

2.1. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an amendment application vide Exhibit-55 in the Regular Civil Suit No. 107 of 2005. Vide order dated 19.3.2009, the learned Principal Civil Judge, Palitana, has rejected the Exhibit-55 application. Hence, this petition.

As a result of hearing it is found that even according to Plaintiff the Respondent No. 1 sold the land to Defendant No. 2. It is clearly stated in para 9 of the plaint. Therefore, the suit was filed. The facts mentioned in Exhibit-55 application were known to the Petitioner and they are reflected in the plaint. The Trial Court found that if the application is allowed, it would change the subject matter of the suit. Further the Petitioner has prayed for further relief which is not permissible. In fact the application was brought at belated stage so as to rectify the mistake of the Petitioner. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Trial Court.

In the premises aforesaid, the petition is devoid of any merit. Therefore, the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.