J HIRALAL Vs. GULABCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of admission, the respondent is notified. Accordingly he has put in appearance through a counsel. Hence the matter is taken up for final hearing itself.

(2.) This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 3rd Oct. 1981 passed by the learned II additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 10358/80 rejecting an application (L.A. no. 8) filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The learned Judge has rejected the application on the following grounds:

(3.) In this Civil Revision Petition, it is contended by Shri H. B. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Judge has not excerised the discretion judicially, that the principles governing the grant or refusal of amendment have been settled by the various decisions of the Supreme Court and these principles have been completely ignored; that it is not on the part of the learned Judge to hold that the plaintiff wants to add a new subject matter to the sit regarding tenancy; that the amendment sought for are classificatory in nature and are necessary for the proper understanding of the natural and scope of the suit and for proper adjudication of the controversies between the parties; that the learned Judge is not correct in holding that the application is vitiated by mala fides; that it is not open for the court to decide merits of the amendments while considering the question as to whether the application for amendment is or is not to be allowed; that amendments sought for do not either change the subject matter of the suit or the nature and scope of the suit; that no prejudice is caused to the defendant is taken away if the amendments sought for are allowed in as much as the suit is at the initial stage.