BABARAO Vs. SONBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed by the original plaintiff against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Darwha, dated 6 - 12 -1974 rejection his application for amendment of the plaint. Before recording of the evidence the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint and the map which was in the nature of clarification. This application was opposed by the defendant and ultimately the learned Judge came to the conclusion that as the suit is long pending and the amendment application is filed at the last stage, it does not appear to be bonafide. He further came to the conclusion that by the amendment of the defendant will be required to be changed. According to the learned Judge, proposed amendment as stated in para 5. of the application changes the nature of the suit. In this view of the matter, therefore, he rejected the application. As already observed, it is this order which is challenged in this revision application.

(2.) Shri Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the applicant contended before me that the learned Judge committed an error in holding that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit itself. He further contended that the learned Judge was not right in holding that by the amendment the entire pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant will be required to be changed or the amendment is not bonafide. In my opinion, there is much substance in this contention.

(3.) From the record it seems that all the necessary allegation were already made in the plaint itself. The plaintiff wanted only to clarify certain position by the proposed amendments. Vide para. 3 of the application, the plaintiff sought permission to file a corrected map and by paras. 4 and 5 of the application he wanted to carry out consequential amendments in the plaint clarifying the positions. In this view of the matter, in my opinion it cannot be said that the amendments will change the nature of the suit. The said amendments application has been filed recording of the evidence itself. Therefore it cannot be said that it is filed at a late stage. Mere pendency of a suit for a long period cannot be a ground for rejection an amendment application. As observed by the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Rame Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon,;