PORO KUSTA NEVEKAR Vs. CALU BHISSO VELIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. Rule. Mr. Kamat waives notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent heard forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner assails the Order dated 26. 10. 2005 by which the application for amendment filed by the present petitioner who is the plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 34/2002 pending before the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, at Canacona has been dismissed. The application has been dismissed primarily on the ground that since the trial has already started, in terms of proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of C. P. C. the plaintiff was not entitled to the amendment sought for. The second ground on which the amendment has been refused is that the petitioner had filed an application for amendment six months prior to the filing of the present application for amendment.

(3.) MR. Ramani, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial has not yet started. This position is not disputed by Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel for the respondents. That being the position, the first ground on which the amendment application has been dismissed is not sustainable in law. More over, the second ground on which the application has been rejected by the trial Court is also not sustainable in law. A party is not disentitled to file second application for amendment in a suit.