ANTHONYAMMA Vs. V.KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S.No.25630/2014 on the file of Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru has filed this writ petition challenging the correctness of the order dtd. 2/8/2022, by which, the trial Court rejected an application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure to amend the plaint.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.25630/2014 was filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The suit was contested by the defendant, based upon which, issues were framed and the case was set down for trial. At the stage of addressing arguments on the suit, the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint schedule to describe the boundaries properly. Said application was rejected by the trial Court as being belated and that the plaintiff was not diligent in filing the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, present writ petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that amendment is only to describe the boundaries so as to give clarity to the pleadings. He submitted that defendant would not be prejudiced if the amendment is allowed. He further submits that the inconvenience if any caused to the defendant could be adequately compensated.