In a suit of injunction filed by the petitioner at the trial court, there were few differences in the plaint schedule of property and the schedule of property mentioned in the title documents. The petitioner had a clear title, patta etc in his name while the defendant in the suit did not possess any title deeds except a few bogus documents which he marked during trial. Moreover, the petitioner had obtained an interim injunction order in his name. Also, a court appointed advocate commissioner and land surveyor report was requested by the petitioner to measure and identify the ownership of the suit property. Even the report concluded the ownership of the petitioner and also showed that the defendant encroached into the suit property- however, the trial court dismissed the injunction suit sighting differences in the schedule property in the plaint and the schedule property in the title document -The magistrate did not verify any of the documents marked by the petitioner and more importantly when the P.W was crossed by the defendant counsel based on the court appointed advocate commissioner and land surveyor report and even that too was overlooked and thus the injunction suit was dismissed under most unjustifiable grounds. More importantly, the defendant had stated a different survey number in all his counter / written statements. Even in his deposition to the court, the defendant had admitted that, his property is different from that of the petitioner property and that he did not have any registered title to his property.
The petitioner filed appeal in the appellate court - In the I.A of the appeal, amendment to plaint schedule of property was requested by the petitioner -the appellate court dismissed the I.A on the grounds that the petition for amendment is belated and that it should have been done before the trial began sighting a part of the C.R.P rule "Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial."
It is clear that the survey number of the petitioner is different from that of the defendant - Moreover, the title deeds and the advocate commissioner report were never referred to by the trial court. In these circumstances for no fault of the petitioner, the appellate court dismissed the i.A of the Ist Appeal - without this amendment the argument could not be conducted - the petitioner therefore feels that he can file a C.R.P and appeal for amendment.
I would like to know in such a scenario, is it possible to win an amendment under C.R.P at the high court?
Can grounds be expanded under C.R.P?
Kindly enlighten me.
