Madan Lal vs Kabal Singh and Others

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been filed against the order dated 11.8.1997 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD) Patti. By this order the learned Additional Civil Judge has allowed the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. It may be noted here that the amendment sought by the plaintiff was to the effect that in the alternative the plaintiff was entitled to the damages of Rs. 1 lac if the possession of the land in dispute is not delivered to him.

The only point raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner is that the alternative plea raised by the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 1 lac as damages is time barred and as such the amendment incorporating this relief which is lime barred, is not permissible. In support of this submission the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in T.L. Muddukrishanan and another Vs. Smt. Lalitha Ramchandra Rao, .

Mr. Sandhu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely covered against him by a judgment of this court in Randhir Singh v. Ajit Singh 1992 P.L.J. 412. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. As held by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh (supra) in a case where the relief of possession of land has been sought, the alternative relief claiming the amount of damages against he land in dispute, is permissible even if the alternative relief has been claimed after the expiry of the period of limitation. With respect, I am in full agreement with the judgment of this court in the case of Randhir Singh (supra). Accordingly, the. petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.