JAI NARIAN Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Sub-ordinate Judge refusing an amendment in the plaint. The addition to the plaint which the plaintiffs have prayed for is set out in paragraph No. 4 of the order under revision ; it merely states that the plaintiffs want to say that "the defendant proves that the property is trust property it will not impair the right of the plaintiffs as they are transferees in good faith for consideration.

(2.) The suit is for recovery of rent and it appears that the plaintiffs are purchaser of the property which is alleged to be trust property and hence it appears that the defendants have denied the rights of the plaintiffs to claim rent of the property.The question to be asked at this stage is whether the court is right in refusing an amendment. One of the reason for which the amendment in the plaint has been disallowed is that the evidence has been closed and no further plea should be allowed. The other ground is that in case the pla- intiffs prove their title they would succeed in getting a decree in the present suit.

(3.) It is settled law that even if the amendment in the pleading is sought at a late stage it should be allowed if the party can be compensated by way of costs. However, negligent or delayed the amendment may be, if the other side has not prejudiced its position, an amendment should be allowed. The reason for this rule is that often parties make a mistake in the matter of pleading and they should not be unnecessarily penalised for the failure to make correct pleading in the first place. (See L.J. Leach & Co. Ltd. and another v. M/s. Jardine Skinner and Co and Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kalgonda Shidgonda. In the former case the amendment was allowed in the Supreme Court itself which was the last stage. In the latter case the principle that the an amendment should be allowed if the parties can be compensated for by costs has been stated. This rule is also to be found in many reported English and Indian cases and has been universally applied. I do not think that any prejudice has been caused to the defendant so far on account of the failure of the plaintiffs to plead that they are transferees in good faith without notice I am even doubtful whether their being tranferees in good faith makes any difference in the present case to their rights but it may have some effect at a later stage of the proceedings. I would not like to say that the plea is not to be allowed.