DAMODAR Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 26.4.2013 (Ann. P.13) and order dated 16.8.2013 (Ann. P.16) passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Sagar in COS No. 17-A/2010, whereby his application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 of CPC for producing some certified copy of Khasra and order of some Election Commission and the application of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to amend the plaint with respect of aforesaid Khasra have been dismissed respectively by the above mentioned orders.

(2.) Having heard the counsel at length keeping in view his arguments after perusing the papers placed on record, I have found that the impugned orders have been passed under the vested discretionary jurisdiction of such Court. In such premises the impugned order does not require any interference under the superintending jurisdiction of this court vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Vs. Ajit Prasad Tarway, 1973 AIR(SC) 76.

(3.) Apart the aforesaid in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Ajendra Prasad N. Pandey Vs. Swami Keshav Prakesh Dasji N., 2006 12 SCC 1 the amendment application could not be allowed at later stage in the matter if the facts proposed in the amendment application were in the knowledge of the concerning party from the date of filing the plaint or the written statement, as the case may be. It is apparent in the case at hand that the facts proposed by the petitioner in the impugned application for amendment were very well in the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff on the date of filing the suit but the same was not pleaded and after closing the evidence of plaintiff such application was filed at very belated stage. In such premises the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.