KANTABAI @ KANHOPATRA @ CHANDRABHAGA Vs. KASHINATH GANGARAM GHATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner by learned Counsel Mr.A.M.Tirukh. According to him, though the respondents were served and the petition was listed for final disposal, they are absent.

(2.) It is the grievance of the petitioner (original plaintiff) in Regular Civil Suit No.39 of 2008 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Karanja Lad, District Washim that commencement of evidence has not yet been fixed in the pending suit while pleadings were being completed. The plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint in the suit for partition, separate possession and mesne profit. The plaintiff felt it necessary to incorporate pleadings by way of amendment of the plaint so that appropriate issues can be framed and the defendants are put to proper notice in respect of the pleadings by the plaintiff. However, the learned trial Judge considered mere opposition to the application for amendment in the plaint and on the ground that the plaintiff has sought amendment previously also, felt that there was no necessity to permit amendment and rejected the application with cost of Rs.1000/. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner has moved this Court.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order. It appears that the learned trial Judge is concerned with expeditious disposal of the suit as, according to him, proposed amendment would cause delay in disposal of the suit. Hence, he rejected the application for amendment.