AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Gangele, J.—Heard. This petition has been filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 22-11-2012 (Annexure P-1) and dated 24-01-2013 (Annexure P-2). By the aforesaid orders, the trial Court rejected the applications filed by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC and also under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.
The petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioners pleaded that they are the owner of the suit land and the defendant No. 1 on the basis of forged Will got mutation of the land vide order dated 05-01-1993, however, he had no right.
During the pendency of the suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC that on the basis of the sale deeds certain persons made encroachment over the land and erected the houses thereon. It is mentioned in the application that the petitioners came to know about the aforesaid fact on 08-09-2011, when they had seen the revenue record. It is further pleaded that the petitioners also sought relief of the recovery of possession and for removal of construction and encroachment.
It is an admitted fact that for the purpose of recovery of possession payment of ad valorem Court fees is necessary. The petitioners did not plead that on how much area of the land encroachment has been made and what is the value of the land for which the petitioners want recovery of possession. The petitioners also not pleaded that what is the value of the construction which was made and which they want to remove. The trial Court rejected the application on the ground that if the amendment is allowed it would change the nature of the suit.
In my opinion, the findings recorded by the trial Court are in accordance with law. The petitioners/plaintiffs want to introduce the pleadings, which would change the nature of the suit and even the jurisdiction of the Court because the petitioners valued the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 231/- and paid required Court fees of Rs. 580/-. For the purpose of recovery of possession and removal of construction they have to make value of the property and value of the land. The petitioners have to also challenge the sale deeds which were executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of other persons. Hence, in my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction in dismissing the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
Similarly the petitioners filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for adding certain persons as party-defendants, who had made construction over the land and also the persons, who purchased the land from the defendant No. 1. Sale deeds have also not been challenged by the petitioners in the suit.
In these circumstances, the trial Court has also rightly rejected the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
In my opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.