forcibly and illegally by defendant nos. 3 and 4 on 22.3.2009. However, the application was not moved immediately. On the other hand actual application moved by the plaintiff is dated 3.9.2009 which has been shown by the counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. A copy of this application is taken on record as Annexure RX. This application has been moved for amendment of plaint as well as replication. It, thus, becomes apparent from combined reading of applications Annexure P/1 and Annexure RX that the plaintiff has made out a false case of alleged forcible and illegal possession from the suit property by defendant Nos. 3 and 4 along with others. Even otherwise if the plaintiff had been forcibly dispossessed on 27.5.2009, she would not have waited till 3.9.2009 for moving application for amendment of plaint and replication. In between the case was fixed before the trial court on 1.6.2009 and 28.7.2009. The plaintiff would have been moved the application for amendment at least on the said dates of hearing. It has been alleged in the amendment application that the plaintiff had approached the police and the police assured that the possession would be restored to her within one or two days. Even if this version is accepted, the plaintiff would not have waited for more than three months for moving amendment application. At the cost of repetition, it has to be highlighted that the plaintiff has tried to make out a false case of illegal and forcible dispossession from the suit property. It is apparent from the fact that she pleaded her alleged dispossession on 22.3.2009 as well as on 27.5.2009. Consequently, the application for amendment of plaint has been rightly rejected by the trial court. There is no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned order of the trial court on this aspect.
