SUKHPAL SINGH Vs. CHATARPAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though, apparently, it seems that the writ petition is arising out of a concurrent order passed by the Trial Court on 3rd March, 2015, by virtue of which, the amendment as sought by the plaintiff petitioner by invoking Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, while describing the "defendant No. 1" as "defendants" has been rejected. This order of rejection of amendment was put to challenge by the plaintiff/petitioner by filing a revision, the revision too stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 7th November, 2015.

(2.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though in the plaint there had been a number of codefendants, but due to error in the body of the plaint as well as in the relief clause, instead of word defendants, the defendant No.1 was transcribed, hence, the amendment which has been preferred by the petitioner was confined to that extent only by describing the word "defendant No.1" as "defendants".

(3.) This Court is of the considered view that looking to the nature of amendment, it was neither changing the nature of the suit nor it was amounting to withdrawing the admission rather it was only the manner in which the description of the defendants who were already there on record was sought to be amplified by the petitioner.