BHULAI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.2.1995 passed by Civil Judge-VIII, Pratapgrah allowing amendment in the plaint in Original Suit No. 212 of 1979 and the order dated 9.8.2005 passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting petitioner's revision. It appears that an amendment application was filed in Original Suit No. 212 of 1979 for adding certain words which read as under:

(2.) This has been followed in Peethani Suryanarayana and another v. Repaka Venkata Ramana Kishore and others, 2009 75 AllLR 510(SC). To the same effect is the view taken in Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another, 2009 76 AllLR 138).

(3.) From the above, the law discern is that in the matter of seeking amendment in the pleadings, Courts must have taken a pragmatic view as to whether amendment would delay the proceedings, will change the nature of the proceedings, will have the effect of giving new cause of action and so on but otherwise where the plaintiff himself has sought amendment in the plaint, I find no reason to discard the amendment. In the present case, the submission of learned Counsel for petitioner that in case the aforesaid amendment is allowed, it would result in granting entire relief to plaintiff, is thoroughly misconceived and unsustainable. Even after allowing the amendment, the issue raised by the parties before the Court below has to be adjudicated on the basis of pleadings and evidences adduced before it and merely allowing of amendment application does not mean that the entire relief has been granted to plaintiff. I, therefore, find no error apparent on face of record warranting interference.