SANTOSH KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant petition, the petitioner / defendant is questioning the validity of the order dtd. 28/4/2022 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the First Additional District Judge Harda, District-Harda (MP) in a pending RCS No.11/2020 whereby, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner / plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the proposed amendment is not necessary and the same has been filed belatedly.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed a suit (Annexure-P/1) for declaration and permanent injunction on 24/1/2020. The defendant Nos.1 to 7 had filed their written statements (Annexure-P/2, P/3 and P/4 respectively). Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an application for amendment in the plaint (Annexure-P/5) on 18/4/2022. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 filed reply (Annexure-P/6) to the said application. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court vide impugned order (Annexure-P/7) dtd. 28/4/2022 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the proposed amendment is not necessary and the said application has been filed at belated stage. Being aggrieved with the said impugned order (Annexure-P/7), the petitioner has preferred this present petition before this Court.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that the proposed amendment application is necessary for just and proper disposal of the case. By proposed amendment, the petitioner has tried to clarify and amplify the existing pleadings in the plaint. He further submits that the clarification and amplification of the existing pleadings by way of amendment is permissible and hence, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned order dtd. 28/4/2022 passed by the First Additional District Judge Harda, District-Harda (M.P.) in RCSA No.11/2020.