KENCHAMMA Vs. S. UMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner ­ plaintiff filed a suit for injunction in the year 1995. THEreafter, the second plaintiff filed an application under Order ­ 6, Rule ­ 17 of C.P.C., seeking amendment of the plaint, wherein she intended to introduce a new prayer seeking to cancel the sale deed dated 03.12.1962. THE Trial Court vide the impugned order, rejected the application. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set -aside. That the amendment sought for is just and necessary for the final adjudication of the suit. That the Trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application.

(3.) ON hearing the learned counsel and on examining the impugned order, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court that calls for interference.