SOMAN NAIR Vs. PRATHAPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. 218/83 of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. He filed I.A. 546 of 1986 to amend the plaint. The petition was dismissed by the learned Munsiff holding that the petition has been filed with a view to protract the proceedings.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that amendment of the pleadings is really necessary for resolving the controversy between the parties and merely on account of delay the learned Munsiff ought not to have dismissed the petition. The plaint schedule property as per the present description measures only approximately 8 cents. Commissioner inspected the property and found that the extent of the property in dispute is 14.630 cents. Petitioner wants the extent of the property to be shown as 18 cents in the plaint.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on AIR 1974 P & H 247 contended that as there is no bona fides in seeking the amendment the court below was justified in dismissing the petition. He also relied on AIR 1977 HP 51 and contended that amendment application with ulterior motive to prolong the litigation cannot be allowed. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that merely because there has been delay in filing the petition, bona fides of the plaintiff (revision petitioner) cannot be doubted. He also contended that petitioner does not have any ulterior motive to prolong the proceedings as be would not gain thereby in any manner. Counsel submitted that petitioner has claimed damages also in the suit and therefore it is not at all likely that he would adopt dilly-dallying tactics.