9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner assailed the order on the following grounds: (i) That the suit was filed on 5-11-2001 and on 9-12-2001, the Commissioner inspected the spot and found that construction of the Petitioner was already complete and the application was filed after 9 years of filing of the Commissioner's report. The Plaintiff earlier moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure on 8-11-2006, but in that application also no relief for possession was prayed. (ii) It is submitted that the amendment was barred by limitation. He has referred Article 113 of the Limitation Act in support of his contention that after accruing cause of action, the amendment has been sought after 9 years while it ought to have been made within 3 years fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and possession of the Plaintiff. (b) That a mandatory injunction be issued against Defendants restraining them to raise the construction and to restore the possession of plot by issuance of mandatory injunction. (c) That perpetual injunction be issued against the Defendants not to interfere in the possession, raise construction over the plot. (d) That cost be allowed. (e) That any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit be allowed to the Plaintiff. 5. The Plaintiff has prayed amendment in relief clause in which he has sought amendment that the 'vacant possession after demolition of the construction' be permitted to be inserted in Para 14(b). In Para 14(b) of the relief clause, the Plaintiff had already sought r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the trial, such amendment could not be allowed is found without merit. 7. By the aforesaid amendment, the Plaintiff is amending relief clause specifically that possession of the plot be restored to the Plaintiff by removing construction raised by the Defendant's. Though in Para 14(b) of the plaint, in relief clause, the Plaintiff has already prayed for a mandatory injunction against Defendants, but to make the relief specific, such amendment if made, no fault is found. So far as contention of the Petitioner that on the date of filing of the application, such relief was barred by limitation is concerned, he has placed reliance to Article 113 of the Limitation Act. For ready reference, Article 113 of the Limitation Act is quoted which r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances. But it is equally true that the Courts while deciding such prayer should not adopt hypertechnical approach. Liberal approach should be the general rule particularly to cases where the other side can be compensated with the costs. Technicalities of law should not be permitted to hamper the Courts in the administration of justice between the parties. Amendments are allowed in the pleadings to avoid uncalled for multiplicity of litigation. 10. In the case, the Defendants allegedly raised the construction during pendency of the suit, Plaintiff is entitled for a decree of possession against the Defendants. Apart from this, it is stated by the Plaintiff/Respondent that an undertaking was given by the Defendants in this regard, but in s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
