JUDGMENT
J.S. Khehar, J.
1. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from dispossessing her or illegally interfering in peaceful possession of the suit premises (described in the heading of the plaint as 112 Joshi Colony, Amritsar, allegedly composing of one bed room, one drawing-cum-dining room, 2 both rooms, one kitchen, one store room and a barasati). In addition to the aforesaid primary prayer, claim of the petitioner/plaintiff also was for restraining the defendants “from obstructing the passage marked AB, staircase marked CD which goes to the first floor, and bath room under the staircase marked EF, which is part of the tenanted premises by locking doors at point Z and Y fully detailed in the site plan attached…..”
2. The suit in question was filed on 23.10.1996. As per the averments made in the suit and from the heading of the plaint as also the relief claimed, it becomes clear that the plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit.
3. From the narration of facts in the order of the civil Court, impugned in the present case, it emerges that the petitioner/plaintiffs evidence has been concluded. Even the statements of two witnesses produced by the defendants have been recorded. It is at this juncture that an application was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking various amendments in the plaint. The cumulative effect of these amendments in the factual scenario is that after the filing of the suit i.e. during the pendency of the suit the respondent/defendants had taken forcible possession of one bath-room which is under the staircase and the barsati, they had also locked the gate located near the staircase. On the basis of the aforesaid factual position which is alleged to have occurred after the filing of the suit, an amendment has been sought even to the heading in the prayer of the suit so as to seek restoration of the possession of the suit property of which the petitioner/plaintiff has been dispossessed after the filing of the suit and for unlocking the gate located near the staircase.
4. Interestingly, the details of the amendment sought which have been extracted in the impugned order of the trial Court, do not reveal the exact date on which the petitioner/plaintiff was dispossessed of the bathroom under the staircase and the barsati and the exact date when the gate located next to the staircase was locked. Suffice it to state the tenor of the amendment shows that the possession from the bathroom under the staircase and the barasati as also the locking of the gate took place during the pendency of the suit.
5. According to the determination of the trial Court, the factual position asserted in the application for amendment is contrary to the statement made by the petitioner/plaintiff herself during the course of recording of evidence on her own behalf. A perusal of the impugned order would show that “The plaintiff herself admitted in her cross-examination that the Barsati, terrace, common passage, stairs and bathroom under stairs are not in her possession since September, 1996.” Thus, according to her own showing she was not in possession of either the bathroom under the staircase or the barsati even at the time of filing of the suit. The factual posit ion now sought to be asserted in the amended plaint is clearly contrary to the admission made by the petitioner/plaintiff during the course of her cross-examination. In fact, on the aforesaid premises, the trial Court did not accept the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on D.A.V. College, Hoshiarpnr Society v. Sarvada Nand Anglo Sanskri Higher Secondary School, Managing Committee, Bassi Kallan, AIR 1967 Punjab 501, wherein it has been held that if proper relief has not been claimed in the plaint, the court should give an opportunity to the plaintiff to amend the plaint so as to bring the suit in proper form. In the instant case, appropriate relief had been claimed on the basis of the position asserted in the plaint i.e. that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. Since the suit had been filed in the proper form and appropriate relief had been claimed in the plaint, there is no question of allowing the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint so as to bring it in the proper form. The aforesaid decision is thus of no avail to the petitioner.
7. Learned Counsel has also relied upon another decision rendered by this Court in Parkasli Chand v. Shri Sat Narain Mandir, 1999(1) 121 P.L.R. 23 :1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 289 (P&H). In the aforesaid case, the plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction and for restraining the defendants from dispossessing him and interfering in his peaceful possession as tenant over the shop which was taken on lease from the defendant. In the plaint, which was originally filed, it was clearly stated that in the absence of the plaintiff, the defendants removed all his belongings and put up bricks in the shop and removed the gate. In the aforesaid factual position, this Court held that the plaintiff
was entitled to amend the plaint so as to make a prayer seeking possession and mandatory injunction. In other words, there was simply an omission made in the original plaint to claim the relief of mandatory injunction seeking possession. In other words, the amendment was permitted in the prayer clause so as to bring it in the proper form. This decision is to the same effect as the decision of this Court, referred to above, i.e. D.A.V. College’s case (supra). As already noticed, the prayer made in the instant case at the lime of filing of the suit was not in consonance with the pleadings of the plaint. It is, therefore, obvious that this judgment is also inapplicable to the factual position in the instant case.
8. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner/plaintiff on a decision rendered by this court in Piara Singh v. Santokh Singh and another, 1998(2) 119 P.L.R. 360 : 1998(2) RCR (Civil) 491 (P&H).
Pointed reference has been made to the following observations :
“…..The plaintiff has filed as mentioned above a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from dispossessing him from the property in question. During the pendency of their suit, the plaintiff- petitioner contended that he has been dispossessed. He now wanted the relief of possession. If that is so, the subsequent event could not be ignored. The amendment was necessary to determine the question in controversy. In such like cases, even if there is slight change in the nature of the suit, keeping in view the events that lake place, it is appropriate that the amendment should be allowed. It is in the interest of justice, and it is well known that laws of procedure are hand-maids to the Court to administer justice. The trial Court in these circumstances, therefore, was not right in rejecting the application.
The position which heavily weighed with the Court while deciding the aforesaid case was the dispossession of the plaintiff in the said case during the pendency of the suit i.e. a fact which had occurred prior to the filing of the suit. So far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner/plaintiff in her statement has acknowledged that she was not in possession of the portion of the suit property in respect of which the amendment is sought since September, 1996, whereas the suit was filed on 23.10.1996. In the instant case the facts on the basis of which the amendment has been sought occurred before the filing of the suit. The decision relied upon is thus inapplicable to the instant case and, therefore, the determination of this court in the aforesaid case is of no benefit to the petitioner.
9. The amendment sought by the petitioner/plaintiff cannot be granted even for the additional reason that in the amendment plaint the entire claim is that dispossession took place after the filing of the civil suit, whereas, in her own cross-examination, the petitioner/plaintiff has admitted that she had been disposed of the bathroom under the staircase as also the
barsati portion of the suit property in September, 1996 i.e. well before the filing of the suit. It would be misconceived to allow the petitioner/plaintiff to amend the suit so as to incorporate in the pleadings a factual position contrary to the petitioner/plaintiffs own statement recorded under oath.
10. For the reasons recorded above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 1.2.1999. This petition is accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
11. Petition dismissed.