Srinagar, Nov 8: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the amendment of a property suit to include a plea for recovery of possession, ruling that changing the relief from permanent injunction to possession does not fundamentally alter the nature of a case involving the same property.

Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the petition filed by Tara Mani, upholding the August 14, 2026 order of the Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate), Udhampur, which allowed the plaintiff to amend his plaint.
The judgment was delivered on October 31, 2026, in CM(M) No. 242/2026.
The dispute concerns 4 kanals and 4 marlas of land under Khasra Nos. 1204 and 1205 at village Jib in Udhampur district. The respondent, Radhey Krishan, had initially filed a suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction against the petitioner, alleging interference with his share of the property.
The plaintiff claimed that the land had been mutually partitioned among its co-owners and that he had constructed a residential house on his portion. He alleged that Tara Mani, who had purchased adjoining land, intended to raise a boundary wall by encroaching upon part of his property.
During the proceedings, the defendant sought appointment of a Local Commissioner to inspect the disputed site. Following the trial court's directions, the Tehsildar, Udhampur, conducted an inspection through revenue officials.
The report indicated encroachment over 16 marlas of land under Khasra No. 1204 and 1 kanal and 4 marlas under Khasra No. 1205.
Based on the report, the plaintiff sought amendment of his plaint to include the relief of restoration of possession of the allegedly encroached portions. The trial court allowed the application.
Challenging the order, Tara Mani argued that the amendment fundamentally changed the nature of the original suit by converting an injunction case into one seeking recovery of possession. It was also contended that the Local Commissioner's report had not properly demarcated the disputed land and could not establish a fresh cause of action.
Rejecting the challenge, Justice Dhar examined Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, observing that amendments should generally be allowed when necessary to determine the real controversy between parties and avoid multiple proceedings.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Sampath Kumar v. Ayyakannu (2002), which held that changing the relief from injunction to possession concerning the same property does not necessarily alter the fundamental nature of a suit.
Justice Dhar observed that the proposed amendment related to portions of the very same property involved in the original proceedings and was sought after the Local Commissioner's report indicated alleged encroachment.
The court further held that the amendment had been allowed before commencement of the trial and that the trial court had properly exercised its discretion.
Finding no illegality or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Sandeep Bhat. No appearance by counsel for the respondent is recorded in the judgment.