In the year 2002, the appellant filed a suit, inter alia, seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents defendants from interfering with her rights over the suit property and further directing them number to build or demolish the building already existing on the suit land.
No rejoinder to the written statement was filed on behalf of the plaintiff and on the basis of the pleadings issues were framed on August 13, 2002.
IV Old New 13, of GiridihMunicipality having double storied house together the land over which it stands bounded as follows xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx The defendant respondents filed their written statement in which objection was especially taken to the description of the suit property as given in the plaint.
On behalf of the respondents it was stated that the area of land that might possibly be the subject matter of any dispute was much smaller and the plaintiff had described properties lawfully belonging to them as the suit property.
It is a brief and number speaking order by which the High Court dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order passed by the trial companyrt which, in turn, had rejected the appellants petition under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure CPC for short for amendment of the suit property as described in the Schedule to the plaint.
Case 28/2002 arising out of T.S.58/2002.
In that proceeding, the husband of the plaintiff was examined as one of the witnesses.
Later, on September 29, 2004, the amendment petition was filed that gives rise to the present appeal.
bearing at present holding number No.304 4 The trial companyrt rejected the petition by order dated February 2, 2006, observing as follows As such it cannot be said that plaintiff in spite of due diligence companyld number have raised this discrepancy in the plaint prior to 29.09.04 i.e. after nearly 2 years of the settlement of the issues and after witnesses have been examined on oath in the Misc.
The order of the trial companyrt was challenged before the High Court in a writ petition which was dismissed with the observation that there was numberillegality in the impugned order.
It was also suggested to him that the rest of the land admittedly belonged to the defendants and further that any alleged dispute between the parties companyld only be over a very limited area and number the entire property as stated in the Schedule to the plaint.
Thereafter, the proceedings in the suit remained in abeyance but on August 5, 2002, the appellant plaintiff filed a Misc.
Petition under Order 39, Rule 2 A read with Section 151 C.P.C. registered as Misc.
Case No.28/2002 for alleged breach of an interim injunction earlier granted in her favour.
In the Schedule to the plaint, the description of the suit premises was given as follows Southern half portion of measuring an area of 1937.97 sq.feet 0.04.448 acres or 0.04.9/20 acres bearing at present holding Nos.304, before that 275 and presently 201, Ward No.
2 This appeal is directed against the order dated July 13, 2006, passed by the High Court in W.P. C No.2325 of 2006.
The witness the appellants husband , however, denied the suggestions made on behalf of the defendants and stuck to the stand that the disputed property was companyrectly described in the plaint and that was the subject matter of the suit.
Arising out of SLP C No.20203/06 AFTAB ALAM,J. 1 Leave granted.
3 The material facts are brief and simple.
In companyrse of his cross examination, it was repeatedly put to him that he did number have any idea of the suit land and that he would number claim all the area mentioned in the Schedule to the plaint but the plaintiffs claim would be only over one decimal of land.
