WPMS 1638/2006 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri V.K. Kohli, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Vashisth, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession. The defendant resisted the suit alleging that the suit was not maintainable since the defendant was in possession by virtue of the sale deed. During the pendency, the plaintiff moved an application seeking amendment of the plaint. Through the amendment application, the plaintiff sought the relief of possession. This application was allowed, against which, the defendant filed a revision, which was dismissed and consequently, the present writ petition was filed. The only ground urged by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/defendant is that, the defendant is the owner by virtue of the sale deed executed in its favour and the validity of that sale deed has not been questioned by the plaintiff. Consequently, the relief of possession could not be added in the plaint nor could such relief eventually be allowed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the trial court was justified in allowing the amendment application. The relief of possession could otherwise have been claimed by the plaintiff in a separate suit but in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the relief of possession has also been claimed in the same suit. The relief of possession, whether it can be decreed or not, is for the trial court to decide on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. At the stage of the amendment, the merit of the suit is not required to be considered. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Certified copy of this order shall be sent by the registry to the court below within two weeks from today for necessary information and action. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 27-12-2011 SP