Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.14 seconds)Muni Lal vs The Oriental Fire & Generalinsurance ... on 9 November, 1995
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by time and in view of the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Muni Lal v. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited and Anr., A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 642, the application for amendment has been rightly rejected by the learned trial Court. It is contended that the demolition took place on 10th April, 1994, while the application for amendment was filed in 1998. Firstly, I find no discussion in relation to this ground by the learned trial Court and secondly, the case of the plaintiff was that he had taken a vacant plot and had constructed a shop on that plot. As he was apprehending serious threat to his dispossession and demolition of the tenanted property, he filed the suit. The defendants have completely denied any right of title of the plaintiff in relation to the property in question. According to the plaintiff, he wishes to add the relief of mandatory injunction and possession by the proposed amendment. Under Section 64 of the Limitation Act, 193, the plaintiff can claim such relief of possession within 12 years as he is not basing his claim of title. However, this controversy would have to be gone into during the course of the trial. As is apparent from the observations of the learned trial Court that the plaintiff had been admittedly dispossessed. Whether it was according to due process of law or unauthorised or illegal will have to be gone into during the trial by the learned trial Court.
1