SUKHDEV RAJ Vs. SANGEETA BUDH RAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order allowing amendment of the plaint in the suit filed by respondent No. 1 therein. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed prayer for amendment of the plaint after taking note of all the objections raised on behalf of the defendants in the case and it was observed that the proposed amendments are necessary for the just decision of the case and no mala fide can be imputed to the plaintiff and the only intention seems to be to clarify the stand of the plaintiff. It was also noted that all possible objections have already .been taken "by the defendants in the written statement filed to the original plaint and the "plaintiff was prepared to pay Court fee after proper valuation of the suit property, and that on the facts and circumstances of the case no prejudice would be caused to the defendants in allowing the amendment.

(2.) The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the plaintiff has been allowed to withdraw admission and improve the stand and that this was not permissible and further earlier also, the plaintiff had amended .:he plaint. Accordingly he could have taken all pleas in the first application and that second, application, for amendment of the plaint ought not to have causeen entertained.

(3.) I have gone through the trial Court records and also heard Counsel tak-or the parties. I find that the first amendment was only for impleading another fibarty to the suit, who is son of the original defendant, by means of application Winder Order I Rule 10 of Code Civil Procedure and there was no amendment of facts and/or on merits. I find that all essential and basic facts are mentioned in the original plaint, and what is sought by the impugned amendment is lucidation of those facts.