P VEERAJU Vs. V MANGA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first limb of paragraph 9 (b) inserted to the plaint by way of an amendment and permitted by the lower Court reads that on account of fraud practiced by the petitioner and others in the earlier litigation the first respondent was deprived of her share in the profits realised by the firm of which she, the petitioner and some others were partners while second limb of the paragraph reads that the period spent by the first respondent in bona fide prosecuting the remedies available to her in law in the earlier litigation should be excluded in reckoning the period of limitation for the purpose of the suit instituted by her. It is not denied that enough averments were made in the plaint orginally in support of the plea of exclusion of the period spent by the first respondent in bona fide prosecuting the remedies available to her in the earlier litigation. No serious exception can' therefore, be taken to insertion of the second limb of paragraph 9 (b) to the plaint. THE only grievance ventilated by Sri M. Jagannadharao on behalf of the petitioner is that allegations of traud contained in the first limb of paragraph 9 (b) were introduced for the first time and that the same should not be permitted. It is true that the rule is somewhat strict against introduction of allegations of fraud subsequent to the filing of the plaint. THE rule is, however, not an inflexible one of invariable application and can be relaxed in exceptional circumstences where the party applying for such an amendment satisfies the Court that there were adequate reasons for not making the allegations of fraud sought to be introduced by way of an amendment, in the original plaint and that the allegations of fraud are at least prima facie true and subsequential. It may be noted that the first respondent is a lady. In the plaint, as originally filed, it is clearly averred that the petitioner-first/respondent and the 2nd defendant conducted the earlier litigation band in glove and that the compromise reached between them and the other parties in the earlier litigation was without her knowledge and behind her back. By reason of the amendment what was not averred and expressed with precision and in legal jargen was sought to be rectified. 1 must also add that the petitioner is not prejudiced by reason of the amendment of the plaint permitted by the lower Court. In any event, I am convinced that there is no failure of justice occasioned by the impugned order. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition fails and dismissed, but without costs. It is nidless to point out that the petitioner and the other defendants shall be at liberty to file additional written statements, should they so desire. O.V.K.R. C R.P Dishmissed,