AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 190 wordsS.K. Seth, J.—This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against an interlocutory order dated 19.3.2012 passed by the trial Court. Petitioner is the plaintiff who has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction based upon the plea of adverse possession. Subsequently, he wanted to amend the plaint to incorporate the pleadings pertaining to specific performance. Trial Court allowed the amendment.
Order of the trial Court was successfully challenged by defendants in the earlier round of writ petition and this Court on 19.3.2008 directed the trial Court to decide the application for amendment afresh (See Ann. P-7).
By the order impugned, trial Court rejected the amendment application in view of its earlier Order dated 5.9.2008 as well as the 19.3.2008 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner for the same relief. Learned trial Court on due consideration found no merit in application for amendment and rejected it. I do not find any illegality or irregularity with the Order impugned so as to warrant interference in exercise of the extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed in-limine.