Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:66423 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1971 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sarvesh Singh Respondent :- Additional District Judge And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Singh Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. This is the plaintiff's petition. The Original Suit No. 924 of 2012 instituted by plaintiff against the defendant was for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession. In the aforesaid suit, the trial court on 14.10.2014 framed the following issues; "1-क्यया वयादपत्र मम कथथित कथिननों कके आधयार पर वयाददी वयादग्रस्त मकयान कया मयाथलिक , कयाबबिज चलिया आतया हह तथिया प्रबतवयाददीगण कके बवरुद्ध स्थियायदी व्ययादकेश प्रयाप्त करनके कया अथधकयारदी हह? 2-क्यया वयाददी कको प्रबतवयाददीगण कके बवरूद्ध ककोई वयाद कयारण उत्पन्न नहहीं हहआ हह? 3-क्यया वयाददी दयारया वयाद कया ममूल्ययायांकन कम बकयया गयया हह? 4-क्यया वयाददी दयारया प्रदत्त न्ययायशशुल्क अपययार्याप्त हह? 5-क्यया वयाददी वयादपत्र मम इचचच्छित अनशुतकोष कको पयानके कया अथधकयारदी हह?" 2. Issue no. 1 was with regard to the ownership and possession of the disputed property. The said issue was decided against the plaintiff petitioner and suit was dismissed on 18.8.2017. Against the said judgment and decree, petitioner preferred Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2017. An application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was moved on 9.4.2018 for amending the prayer made in the plaint. The said application has been rejected by the court concerned. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it was subsequent to the dismissal of the suit that the defendant are trying to dispossess the petitioner from property in dispute. According to him amendment should have been allowed by the court below. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had filed the original suit No. 924 of 2012 simplicitor claiming the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession. The trial court had framed the issue with regard to ownership and possession of the plaintiff in the property in question. The said issue was decided against the plaintiff in which a categorical finding was recorded by the trial court that plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the property in dispute as property is alleged to have been purchased through an unregistered agreement. The amendment sought by the plaintiff during pendency of appeal changes the nature of the case, as such, the court concerned has refused to allow the amendment application. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no interference is required by this Court with the order impugned. Writ petition is dismissed, accordingly. 6. However, looking into the fact that civil appeal is of the year 2017, the appellate court is hereby directed to proceed with the Civil Appeal No. 47 of 2017 and in case the same is not decided till date, it shall be finally decided, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Shekhar Digitally signed by :- SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad