DAGGUMATI MALAKONDA REDDY Vs. PULIGUNTA MALAKONDA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the order dismissing the petition filed for amendment of the plaint, plaintiff in the suit filed this revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the proposed amendment would obliterate the necessity of the revision petitioner filing a fresh suit, and since respondents would not in any way be prejudiced by the proposed amendment, as they can file an additional statement and can contest the claim made in the amended plaint, the Court below was in error in dismissing the petition for amendment of plaint filed by the revision petitioner.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that in view of the amended Rule 17 of Order VI C.P.C. the order of the trial court dismissing the petition filed for amendment cannot be found fault with because the trial of the suit has already commenced and in any event since the affidavit of the revision petitioner does not disclose the reasons for the proposed amendment and the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the petition for amendment, order under revision needs no interference.