GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT Vs. KAMALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate. The respondents have been served and are unrepresented. The short point involved in this petition centres round the question as to whether the Court was justified in permitting the belated amendment to the written statement whereby the petitioner contends that the original defence that was pleaded has been altered/expanded. Even though initially, I was of the view that the cause of action cannot really be said to have been materially changed, the petitioner's learned Advocate points out to me that this amendment has come at a stage when the plaintiffs evidence is complete, that there has been a delay of 6 years and that the effect of it would mean that the plaintiff would have to reopen his evidence as of necessity. His submission is that the original defence must be confined to the parameters of the original written statement and that on the ground of delay alone, the amendment should not have been permitted. Reliance was placed on an earlier decision of this Court in the case of B. Subramanyam v Kushal Chand wherein this Court has very clearly observed that once a pleading has assumed finality and the evidence has made considerable headway that no further alterations of the case should be permitted by way of amendment. That principle would squarely apply to the present case. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Narasappa and Others v Nanjappa and Others, wherein the Court was dealing with Sections 15 and 18 of the Easements Act in a case relating to right of way and had occasion to observe that if the defence that is pleaded is a limited one, that the party will have to be confined to those parameters.

(2.) ON an overall consideration, the petitioner's contention requires to be upheld. The lower Court ought not to have permitted the belated amendment. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the Court is directed to proceed with the hearing of the suit and dispose off the same on merits. The petition succeeds. No order as to costs.