https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310275 Amendment of the plaint adding a specific prayer for vacant possession after demolition of construction was upheld because it only clarified an existing claim for mandatory injunction and restoration of possession. Since the suit was filed before the amended proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC came into force, the post-commencement restriction did not apply. The amendment was treated as necessary for a just decision and not as changing the nature of the suit. The Court also rejected reliance on Article 113 of the Limitation Act, holding that Article 65 governed a title-based suit, while leaving any limitation defence open before the Trial Court. en-us Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Oct 2023 15:54:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310275 Amendment of the plaint adding a specific prayer for vacant possession after demolition of construction was upheld because it only clarified an existing claim for mandatory injunction and restoration of possession. Since the suit was filed before the amended proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC came into force, the post-commencement restriction did not apply. The amendment was treated as necessary for a just decision and not as changing the nature of the suit. The Court also rejected reliance on Article 113 of the Limitation Act, holding that Article 65 governed a title-based suit, while leaving any limitation defence open before the Trial Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 12 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310275