Ms. Meera vs Ram Dev Sharma and Another

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 15.02.2010 vide which the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") seeking amendment of his plaint had been dismissed. A perusal of the record shows that the present suit is a suit for declaration and injunction; the prayer is that the GPA and the documents prepared by the Defendant No. 1 be declared null and void; by way of this amendment an additional prayer has been sought to be added in the original plaint; the said prayer reads as under:

Direct the Defendant No. 1 to remove his locks from all the three shops of the Plaintiff and be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit property

A perusal of the plaint shows that nowhere in the entire body of the petition there has been description of aforenoted three shops by the Plaintiff; even if the prayer is allowed, the decree would be ineffectual as the details of the aforenoted three shops is nowhere given in the entire body of the plaint.

One of the tests for allowing an amendment application is that the amendment be permitted if it would resolve the controversy and dispute between the parties; in the present case by allowing such amendment, the controversy would in fact be enlarged as the Plaintiff himself is not aware of which shop''s he wants the seal to be removed; it would be setting a new case which has nowhere been pleaded. The impugned order dismissing the application of the Plaintiff suffers from no infirmity; petition is dismissed.