SUSHILA DEVI Vs. RADHA KRISHNA & 2 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order of the trial court as well as the appellate court by which her application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of paragraph no. 3 of the plaint has been rejected. The husband of the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction being Suit No. 650 of 1992. In the said suit the defendants have filed their written statement on 6.7.1997. In paragraph no.5 of the written statement it has been stated that one Smt. Ram Dei, who was the executor of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff died on 15.5.1983 whereas in paragraph no.3 of the plaint the death of Smt. Ram Dei has been mentioned as 15.5.1985. The husband of the petitioner, who had filed the suit unfortunately died in the year 1998. The petitioner was subsequently substituted in place of her husband as plaintiff and on 23.9.2011 filed an amendment application for correcting the date of death of Smt. Ram Dei as 15.5.1983 instead of 15.5.1985.

(2.) The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiff came to know about the correct date of death upon filing of the written statement on 16.7.1997 and if at all it was required the amendment should have been filed immediately. The husband of the petitioner, who was the original plaintiff never filed any amendment. Now after 13 years the amendment application has been filed especially when the evidence has been closed and the matter is at the stage of final hearing. Such an amendment is only for delaying the suit and rejected the application. The appellate court also held that the amendment application at this belated stage was merely to delay the proceedings and rejected the appeal.

(3.) I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.