THOMAS GEORGE Vs. GHEEVARGHESE GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXHIBIT P5, order dated 05.01.2013 on I.A.No.2945 of 2012 in O.S. No.154 of 2009 of Munsiff's Court, Pathanamthitta refusing to allow amendment of plaint after commencement of trial is under challenge.

(2.) PETITIONER filed O.S. No.154 of 2009 for fixation of western boundary of item No.1 with item No.2 and recovery of possession of item No.3 from respondents 1 to 3, on the strength of title and for other reliefs. After commencement of trial petitioner filed I.A. No.2945 of 2012 to amend the plaint schedule, according to the petitioner to correct extent of property referred to therein. Item No.3 which is sought to be recovered from the respondents was originally stated as 3 cents is now sought to be corrected as 1.500 cents. Similar corrections are sought with respect to other items also. Application was opposed by the respondents and dismissed by the learned Munsiff as per Ext.P5, order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondents while vehemently opposing the application, contended that lack of diligence on the part of petitioner is writ large in that it is only after commencement of trial that application for amendment was brought. It is contended that proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") is not complied and hence the court below was right in passing the impugned order.