Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant filed MFA No.7009/2010 before this Court. This Court considering the material on record by the order dated 20.04.2011 appointed the ADLR, Bengaluru Rural District to measure the land on which the school building which is stated to be constructed in Sy.No.143/1 and also by encroaching into the adjacent land in Sy.No.143/2 and to ascertain whether there is any encroachment in Sy.No.143/2 while putting up construction of the said school building on Sy.No.143/1. If so, what is the extent of encroachment in Sy.No.143/2 and also to state what is the extent of vacant land available in Sy.No.143/1 belonging to appellant foundation. The entire extent in Sy.Nos.143/1 and 143/2 is required to be measured and a report in that behalf should be submitted to this Court. The said order reached its finality.

5. Thereafter, the ADLR submitted the report as per Annexure-D before this Court on 06.09.2011. According to the said report, the defendant has encroached 6 ½ guntas and 15 ½ guntas in total 22 guntas of land and also produced sketch which clearly depicts the encroachment portion. Ultimately, this Court by the order dated 20.06.2012 while disposing MFA No.7009/2010 has directed the trial Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and considering the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent with liberty file an application before the trial Court for clubbing O.S.No.484/2009.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to lis.

9. Sri G.A. Srikanth Gouda, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner contended that the impugned orders passed by the trial Court rejecting the applications filed for amendment are erroneous and contrary to material on record. He further contended that the order passed by this Court appointing the ADLR to measure the property of the plaintiff and defendant dated 24.04.2011 has reached its finality. The report and the sketch produced by the ADLR clearly depicts that the defendant encroached the property of the plaintiff to an extent of 22 guntas. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment. The trial Court at the first instance rejected the application for amendment only on the ground that it amounts to withdrawal of admission. Therefore, the plaintiff approached his vendor for rectification of the sale deed. After obtaining rectification deed, the present application was filed for amendment of plaint schedule.

19. The learned Judge failed to notice while passing both impugned orders that the first application filed came to be filed by the plaintiff based on the order passed by this Court in MFA No.7009/2010 at the instance of the parties and on the basis of the report and sketch submitted by the ADLR. Ultimately, the order passed by this Court in MFA 7009/2010 and report submitted thereon by the ADLR has reached its finality. Unless and until the said order is challenged the trial Court cannot found fault with the plaintiff to rectify the eastern and western boundary based on the report submitted by the ADLR and based on the rectification deed. Admittedly in the present case, the defendant has not filed any counter claim in respect of Sy.No.143/2. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant encroached the plaintiff's property. The defendant denied and contended that the plaintiff has given wrong boundary in the sale deed as well as in the schedule to the plaint.