KESHAV SINAI KUNDE Vs. ANTONIO WILTON CAMARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31/01/2006 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.229/04/D. By the impugned order, the trial court had granted amendment application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Kudchadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, at considerable length. He drew my attention to the draft amendment. His serious objection is to the amendment, which the plaintiffs propose to carry out in paragraph 9 of the plaint. He pointed out that the plaintiffs by this amendment propose to delete from line 4 of paragraph 9 the words � by the father of the plaintiff� and insert in their place the words � by someone� . He submitted that the sale deed executed by the father of the plaintiffs is of the year 1975. If the plaintiffs stick to this case then the suit is barred by limitation. In order to get over this, the plaintiffs now want to amend the plaint. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiffs are trying to withdraw admission made by them in the plaint to the prejudice of the defendant. In this connection, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Heeralal v. Kalyan Mal and others, AIR 1998 SC 618, where the Supreme Court was dealing with amendment of the written statement. In the facts of that case, the Supreme Court observed that the defendant cannot be allowed to amend his written statement by taking an inconsistent plea as compared to the earlier plea which contained an admission in favour of the plaintiff. It was further held that such an inconsistent plea which would displace the plaintiff completely from the admissions made by the defendants in the written statement cannot be allowed. The learned counsel then relied on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Manepalli Venkata Lokanath Prasad and others v. Gogineni Suryanarayana and others, 2002 A I H C 2188, where the Andhra Pradesh High Court was considering an application for amendment of the plaint. The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that if the proposed amendment is allowed, the amended pleading will have the effect of wiping out the admissions made in the plaint. In the circumstances, the amendment application was rejected. The learned counsel contended that in the light of the above judgments, the amendment application deserves to be rejected.

(3.) IT is well settled that the courts have to be liberal while considering amendment applications so as to prevent multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case, it is sought to be urged that the plaintiffs are trying to withdraw admission made by them in the plaint. However, such a specific plea is not taken in the reply to the amendment application. Apart from that, in my opinion, in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused to the defendant. If to get over the limitation, the plaintiffs are seeking to bring about the amendment, the trial court can always deal with that issue at the appropriate time.