Bare injunction and belated mandatory injunction amendment fail where title and possession are disputed and limitation has expired.

In a suit for bare injunction where the pleadings showed that construction had already been completed, appointment of an advocate commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC was found unnecessary because local inspection or measurement would not resolve the real , which centred on title, possession and the nature of relief. The amendment sought under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to add a mandatory injunction was also rejected because it was sought long after the cause for that relief had accrued, was beyond limitation, and was not suitable for effective adjudication in the existing suit. The civil revision petitions accordingly failed and the trial court orders were affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application for appointment of an advocate commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable and necessary for deciding the dispute. (ii) Whether the amendment sought under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to include a prayer for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation and otherwise sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the application for appointment of an advocate commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable and necessary for deciding the dispute.

Analysis: The suit was for bare injunction and the pleadings themselves showed that the construction on the property had already been completed. In that situation, local inspection and measurement of construction would not assist in resolving the core controversy. The dispute turned substantially on title, possession, and the nature of the relief claimed, rather than on physical measurement of the structure.

Conclusion: The application for appointment of an advocate commissioner was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the amendment sought under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to include a prayer for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation and otherwise sustainable.

Analysis: Where title is disputed and the plaintiff is not in possession, a bare injunction is not an adequate remedy and the proper course is to seek declaratory and consequential reliefs. The amendment was sought long after the alleged construction had come into existence, and the right to seek the proposed relief had already accrued. The proposed amendment was therefore beyond limitation and was also not appropriate for effective adjudication in the existing form of the suit.

Conclusion: The amendment application was barred by limitation and was rightly dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The civil revision petitions failed, and the orders of the trial court were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where title to the property is in dispute and the plaintiff is not in possession, a bare injunction or belated amendment seeking mandatory injunction is not maintainable; the proper relief is declaration of title with consequential possession-related reliefs, subject to limitation.

---