RAMSHARAN SINGH Vs. BADAL SINGH (DEAD) AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.10.2011, whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is rejected by the court below. It is stated that by preferring the said application, it was brought to the notice of the court below that the sale deed dated 02.02.2011 came to the notice of the plaintiff later on and it is necessary to add those pleadings, which were sought to be added by way of amendment. It is stated that said amendment is necessary for lawful adjudication of the controversy. The court below has rejected it on the ground that suit was instituted on 14.03.2011, whereas the sale deed aforesaid was executed on 02.02.2011 i.e. prior to institution of the suit. It is rejected on the ground that the amendment is not based on any subsequent event.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) A bare perusal of the order-sheet dated 03.10.2011 shows that the suit was at the initial stage. The matter is not posted for evidence of the parties. Issues are yet to be framed. In that event, in my considered opinion, the court below ought to have allowed the amendment. Amendment application, if not hit by the amendment in Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and is not belatedly filed should be dealt with leniently.