NALINI DUTTA Vs. NAGINDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order dated 29.3.1995, passed by the learned Civil Judge, rejecting the plaintiff/petitioner's application under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC, for amendment of the plaint. The learned Civil Judge has declined the amendment application, finding the same to be highly belated and an abuse of legal process. The leaned Civil Judge also took note of the pleadings between the parties in relation to other litigation and the position taken there by the plaintiff as being contrary to the amendment sought by the plaintiff/petitioner.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present revision petition may be briefly noted:

(3.) The plaintiff/petitioner on 14.1.1993, moved the present application under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC. It was avered in this application that while arguing the case on 06.1.1993, it was noted that though in the body of the plaint, the plaintiff/ petitioner had claimed roof as part of the tenated premises, by inadvertence plaintiff/petitioner failed to claim any relief in respect of the said portion, in the prayer clause. Plaintiff/petitioner further sought permission to file a fresh plan showing the complete tenated premises of first floor and second floor in red as the same was inadvertently not shown in the plain filed with the plaint. The plaintiff/ petitioner based his case on inadvertence to claim the relief in the prayer clause and omission to indicate the extent of the tenanted premises in the site plan, while the same was claimed in the body of the plaint. The tenancy is oral and there is no written agreement with regard to the same.