-In a suit for possession under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, the plaintiff has to establish at trial: firstly, that he was in possession of specific immovable property; secondly, that he was dispossessed by the defendant; thirdly, that he was dispossessed without his consent and not in accordance with law; and fourthly, that such dispossession took place within a period of six months prior to the institution of the suit.

 2022 Y L R 76

[Lahore (Multan Bench)]

MOHAMMAD HANIF and 4 others

Versus

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI and 2 others

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----O. VI, R. 17---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 9---Pleadings, amendment of---Respondents' suit for possession was decreed by Trial Court---First Information Report was also launched by respondent regarding illegal dispossession---Petitioners filed revision petition---Respondent filed application for amendment of the plaint during the pendency of civil revision which was allowed by revisional Court---Revision petition was dismissed---Validity---None of the marginal witnesses of the alleged agreements to sell entered appearance in the witness box which was basic requirement of Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---As per Jamabandi, suit property was owned by Government of the Punjab and the revenue record depicted that the petitioners, and not the respondents, were recorded as illegal occupants thereof---No other revenue document was there to suggest that respondent ever remained in possession---Respondent took stance in the application that while institution the suit, he appended jamabandi regarding suit property in a specific khasra---Said assertion was not established through any document---Respondent had instituted suit regarding property falling in another khasra and categorically deposed the same while being cross-examined, he could not summarily be allowed to amend the plaint to incorporate a different description of suit property i.e., one falling in specific khasra---Courts below had given weightage to FIR lodged by the respondent ignoring altogether other documentary evidence including the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioners---Except the said FIR, nothing had been brought on record by the respondent in support of his stance regarding his possession or dispossession by the petitioner---Plaintiff/respondent had to stand on his own legs to prove his case---Revisional court had erred in allowing the amendment of the plaint followed by the amendment in the decree, particularly when the respondent had failed to establish basic ingredients of S.9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877---High Court allowed the Constitutional petition and directed the office to transmit the copy of the present judgment to the relevant authorities for safeguarding the interest of the Government qua the suit property.

(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

---O. VI, R. 17---Pleadings, amended of---Legislature had empowered the court to allow the amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, but such discretion was not unfettered/unrestricted as it was imperative that the amendment of the pleadings might be allowed in just manner/terms---Amendment might not be allowed when it was likely to change the nature of the suit /cause of action---Amendment was also not permissible where, on account of omission to raise a plea in the pleadings, a valid right was accrued to the opposite party.

(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--

----S.9---Suit for possession---Essentials---In a suit for possession under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, the plaintiff has to establish at trial: firstly, that he was in possession of specific immovable property; secondly, that he was dispossessed by the defendant; thirdly, that he was dispossessed without his consent and not in accordance with law; and fourthly, that such dispossession took place within a period of six months prior to the institution of the suit.