HARI Vs. GOVIND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.03.2019 on I.A.No.28 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in O.S.No.1064/2010 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi.

(2.) The petitioner states that he was originally defendant No.3 and he was transposed as second plaintiff by order dated 23.03.2016. When he was transposed as plaintiff No.2 the suit was at the stage of evidence of plaintiff. When the matter stood at the stage of crossexamination of DW.1, the petitioner/plaintiff No.2 filed an application seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The plaintiff sought amendment as follows:

(3.) It is stated that there are wrong pleadings and hence, the plaintiff intends to amend the plaint. It is stated that if the amendment is allowed it would not change the nature of the suit nor cause of action would change. The defendants filed their objection stating that the plaintiff is seeking amendment at the fag end of the litigation and he has not made out any case for allowing the amendment. It is also contended in the objection that to fill up the lacuna in the suit, the present application is filed. The trial Court considering the contentions of the parties by order dated 16.03.2019 rejected I.A. for amendment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff No.2 is before this Court in this writ petition.