CMPMO 15 of 2008 10.4.2008 Present: Mr. Y.Paul, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, counsel for respondent No.2. CMP No. 191 of 2008 For the reasons stated in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Amended memo of parties is ordered to be taken on record. The application stands disposed of. CMPMO 15 of 2008 By means of this petition, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), challenges the order dated 12.11.2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 2, Mandi rejecting the application for amendment filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff claimed his title on the basis of adverse possession w.e.f. 13.4.1985. When the matter was ripe for arguments, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed wherein the following relief was sought to be incorporated in the prayer clause of the suit :- “However, in case prescriptive title of the plaintiff with regarding adverse possession is not proved then any transfer made by late Smt. Shyama widow of late Shri Jai Devi was void and illegal conferring no rights on defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and any further rights on defendants No. 3 and 4 and plaintiff being the exclusive legal heir to late Smt. Shyama, being his grand mother”. I have gone through the copy of the unamended plaint attached with this petition. There is no averment of any transfer by Smt. Shyama in favour of defendants No. 1 & 2 and consequently to defendants No. 3 and 4. Without there being any factual pleadings in the plaint about such transfers/alienations, no application for amendment of the prayer clause could have been allowed. In my opinion, the application itself was totally misconceived and should have been rejected on this ground alone. Therefore, this petition is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to file a fresh one. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, informs that in fact the case stands dismissed in default. Since there are no proceedings pending before the trial court, such a prayer cannot be allowed and is accordingly rejected. April 10, 2008(K) ( Deepak Gupta ), J.