JUDGMENT
Sat Pal, J.
C.M. 59 of 1998.
1. Heard, C.M. is allowed and the petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copy of the documents Annexure P-1 and P-2. C.M. stands disposed of.
C.M. 58 of 1998.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to bring on record documents copies of which are Annexure P-1 and P-2. C.M. stands disposed of.
C.R. 2448 of 1997.
3. This petition has been directed against the order dated 31.3.1997 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Amritsar. By this order, the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the plaint. By the proposed amendment the plaintiff wanted to add the following paragraph in the heading and prayer clause of the suit:
“That they are owners in possession of the land measuring 35 kanals 16 marlas comprised in khasra numbers 37/10/3, 11, 12/2, 19/1, 19/2, 20/1, 56/6, 55/8/1, 54/5/2, 29/10/2, 36/6/6 situated in village Wadali Guru Tehsil and Distt. Amritsar.”
4. The learned Civil Judge rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs on the grounds that the proposed amendment shall change the character of the suit particularly the relief sought by the plaintiffs by the proposed amendment shall be barred by limitation. It may be relevant to state here that the relief sought in the prayer and in the heading was with regard to the averments of the plaintiff that they are owners in possession of the property owned by one Gulzar Singh who died on 25.12.1988.
5. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents. Since none of the respondents appeared despite service, all the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 30.9.1997.
6. Mr. Mahajan the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the learned trial court was not correct in holding that the relief which has been sought in the proposed amendment shall be barred by limitation. He submitted that the original owner of the land in dispute namely Gulzar Singh died in December, 1988 and even a fresh suit could be filed upto December, 2000.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. In para 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint, it has been averred that the defendants had threatened to take the forcible possession. Though it has not clearly been averred that the plaintiffs were in possession but a combined reading of para 7, 8 and 9 clearly shows that the plaintiffs were in possession. In any case, the suit for possession even if filed today will not be barred by the limitation.
8. for the reasons recorded hereinabove the petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31.3.1997 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. Consequently, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. stands allowed.