VASANTH MADHAVA Vs. SRI E. SESHADRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is assailing the order dated 6.9.2007 passed on I.A. No. 14 in O.S. No. 1083/2000. The said application is filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by introducing para -8A after deleting certain portions in para -8 of the plaint.

(2.) I have heard Sri. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Krishnakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, and perused the writ papers including the order dated 6.9.2007 which is impugned in the petition.

(3.) IN this background a perusal of the order passed by the trial court would no doubt indicate that the trial court has relied on the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff with regard to the principles relating to amendment of the plaint. According to the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, though almost all the decisions have been analyzed by the trial court, the most important decision relied in Panchdeo Narain Srivastava Vs. Km. Jyoti Sahay and Another, AIR 1983 SC 462 has not been taken note of except indicating in the list mentioned in the course of the order. According to the learned Counsel, the said judgment would be relevant for the purpose and the non -consideration has lead to erroneous conclusion. The law is well settled in this regard and therefore I need not refer to the reasons assigned by the court by referring to he said judgment. In that context, what requires to be noticed is the relevant contentions urged before me while supporting as well as opposing the order passed by the court below.