HOLEMUTT CHITRADURGA Vs. NINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Advocates on both sides. This is a peculiar civil revision petition where the present petitioners who represents a Mutt, had applied for certain amendments virtually on the eve of the decision of the proceeding. The suit was filed in the year 1983 and the same was fully heard and had reached the stage of arguments in the year 1989. At that stage, a familiar ploy was adopted for purposes of dilating the litigation and an application for amendment was presented. The first part of the proposed amendment was not of much consequence and the defendants agreed to it, the second one was for correction of the number to 229 and it was subsequently discovered that since this was the very number originally mentioned that nothing survives as far as this aspect goes. The third part of the amendment application sought to incorporate the length and breadth of the property in the schedule and the respondents objected to this on the ground that it constitutes introduction of new material at a belated stage. The learned trial Judge upheld this objection and rejected the third part of the amendment application and it is against this order that the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(2.) PETITIONERS' learned Advocate submits that this does not constitute introduction of any new material because the petitioners-plaintiffs had already set out in the schedule the description of the property and the boundaries thereof. He states that the incorporation of the length and breadth is only for purposes of better description of the property which would be useful in the event of a decree having to be drawn up. His only submission is that the small details had been overlooked and that the amendment is nothing more than a formality which will not require any reopening of the proceedings and that the same ought to have been permitted.

(3.) RESPONDENTS' learned Advocate submitted that the petitioners had amended the plaint three times earlier. He submits that the amendment is very late, that no reasons have been given for the delay and more importantly that if it is permitted, that it may require the framing of an additional issue or amendment of the pleadings which would necessitate recalling of the witness etc. , and that the law does not permit all these to be done at such a late stage of the proceedings. Under these circumstances, he submits that no interference is called for with the order of the learned trial Judge.