LINGEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the order dated 4-8-1994 passed by the learned Munsiff, Malavalli, rejecting the application, for amendment moved by the petitioner for the amendment of the plaint, i. e. , LA. 7 in Original Suit No. 468 of 1989. The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration and injunction with respect to the property in Sy. No. 5 measuring 20 guntas. Boundaries of the property has been described in the plaint, but there was some clerical mistake in the description of the eastern boundary which has been mentioned to be rest of the portion of Sy. No. 5, while according to the petitioner that was a mistake. Eastern boundary should have been Halla and land belonging to Siddiah and others. The Trial Court rejected the amendment on the ground that it was being made at a late stage when the evidence has been closed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant submitted that the amendment is necessary for identification and issues can be allowed at any stage unless it amounts to making out a new case or amendment is likely to cause irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. He contended that in the present case, the amendment sought was only for correction of clerical and typing error. It did not amount to any new case being made out. He submitted that it is only a correction of the particulars and description of the property. So learned Counsel contended that the learned Court below acted illegally and illegally refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not allowing the amendment.

(3.) THESE contentions of the learned Counsel for the applicant hasbeen hotly contested by the learned Government Pleader. He submitted that it is within the jurisdiction to allow the amendment or not. So the Court has rejected on its view that it is likely to delay the proceedings. Therefore, mere rejection of the amendment cannot be said to be an error of jurisdiction. Really it would amount to extending the claim over the land originally described. So it may amount to a new case and therefore it was rightly rejected.