SRIDHAR PRASAD LAKHERA Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision arises out of the order dated 63 -2003 by which application paper No.113 -C of the defendant has been rejected. The brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the plaintiff Sri Sudhir Prasad Lakhera purporting for portion of the property of Art Bazar, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal and for a decree of accounting in his favour. Written statement was filed by the defendant. In Paragraph 4 of the counter claim, defendant has claimed decree for declaration without mentioning the value of the counter claim although he has paid Court -fee. When the matter came up for hearing before the Civil Judge on 12 -101999 the learned Civil Judge decided issue No. 7 against the defendant and issue No.8 against the plaintiff. Thereafter, an application was moved in which the defendant was stated that the valuation of the property being four lacs and the same may be permitted to be mentioned in para No.4 of the counter claim. Application was moved in pursuance of order dated 12 -10 -1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge. The application was not opposed by the plaintiff however, the said application was decided by the impugned order on 6 -32003.

(2.) HEARD Sri B. P. Nautiyal learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Manish Goyal Counsel for the respondent. Admittedly, by the order dated 1210 -1999 defendant was permitted to amend the valuation clause but the defendant could not move amendment application immediately. Since the amendment application was moved by the defendant and the same was not opposed by the plaintiff in writing and further there was already a direction for moving an amendment application in the valuation clause, there was no impediment in allowing amendment application. Civil Judge while rejecting the application paper No. 1110 -C has already mentioned that by order dated 1210 -1999 defendant was allowed to amend valuation clause and in order to do substantial justice between the parties amendments application could not be rejected. It is well established principle of law that it is the duty of the Court also to advance justice between the parties. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, also should not be hyper technical while rejecting the application 113C. Law on the amendment of pleadings is very clear and, amendment can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings even at the appellate stage. Since the parties are litigating at the trial stage it is more necessary that the amendment should have been allowed instead of taking too technical view of the matter.

(3.) THEREFORE , the revision is allowed. The plaintiff will get costs of Rs. 500 from the defendant. Amendment shall be incorporated within a week after production of certified copy of the order. The suit is of the year 1991. The suit should be decided within two months after filing of certified copy of this order. Parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 2 -8 -2003. Petition allowed.