RAJENDRA DIXIT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioners/plaintiffs No.1(A) and 1(E), have filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.13 (Annex.P/8) passed by the II Civil Judge-II, Nowgaon, Chhatarpur in COS No.50-A/12 whereby their application filed under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC for amendment in the plaint to insert the additional word ? temple? in the prayer clause of the plaint, has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioners counsel after taking me through the averments of the IA (Annex.P/5) argued that the petitioners have filed the impugned suit for various properties including the alleged temple but due to typographical error and over sight in the prayer clause of the plaint, the word temple was not stated and accordingly, the same could not have been included in the prayer clause. He also pointed out that besides the prayer clause, at some places also, the petitioners want to implead such word in the plaint and in continuation he said that even on allowing the application at the stage of final arguments of the matter, no prejudice would be caused to the other side and prayed to allow his application by setting aside the impugned order by admitting and allowing this petition.

(3.) Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the aforesaid application Annex.P/5 and the impugned order Annex.P/8 so also the other papers placed on the record. True it is that the petitioner wants to insert the word ? temple? in the prayer clause and also some other places of the plaint at the stage of final arguments but in view of decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ajendraprasadji N. Pandey and another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, 2006 12 SCC 1, in the matter of Vidyabai and others Vs. Padmalatha and another, 2009 3 MPLJ 122 and in the matter of J.Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others, 2012 3 MPLJ 37 holding that the facts which are very well in the knowledge of the party on the date of filing the initial pleading and same was not stated and, such fact is proposed to be pleaded by way of amendment application at later stage then unless sufficient cause is made out, such amendment application could not be allowed. In the case at hand, it is apparent fact that on the date filing the suit, the facts of proposed amendment was very well in the knowledge of the petitioners/ plaintiffs. Even after framing the issues on the settling date, the same was in the knowledge of the petitioners and at later stage, on recording the evidence of the petitioners as well as the respondents, the same was in the knowledge of the petitioners, inspite that, no effort was made to amend the pleadings. Only after closing the evidence of the parties when the case was fixed for final arguments, the aforesaid amendment application was filed. So, in such premises, the impugned order appears to be in consonance with law. It is also settled proposition that no party could be permitted to amend the pleadings in consonance with the evidence which have come on the record in the deposition of the witnesses. So, in such premises, the impugned order does not appear to be perverse or contrary to law. Hence, I have not found any merits in this petition even for admission. Consequently, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at motion hearing stage.