HARISHANKAR RAMHANS Vs. JAGSIHNARAYAN BEJHATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by the Defendant against the order of the trial Court allowing the amendment of the plaint. The Plaintiff flied a suit for declaration of his title in respect of a Tiwaria and a compound and for possession. The Plaintiff also applied for a temporary injunction. That temporary injunction was disallowed on the ground that no relief for permanent injunction was claimed. The Plaintiff filed an application for the amendment of the plaint. The amendment was allowed by the trial Court. Consequently the Defendant has filed this revision.

(2.) THE provisions in respect of amendment of plaints are contained in Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure The rule runs as follows:

(3.) THE second contention raised by the learned Counsel is that the amendment is mala fide. His argument is that the temporary injunction having been disallowed, to ask for permission to add the relief for permanent injunction so that temporary injunction may he granted is mala fide. This argument also has no substance. It is true that originally no relief for permanent injunction was asked for and subsequently temporary injunction was refused. But it does not follow that the action of the Plaintiff in amending the plaint so as to add the relief of permanent injunction is necessarily mala fide. It is possible that the omission of the relief was due to oversight or inadvertence. It cannot be said that the amendment has been sought very late. No definite ground has been taken to show that the act of the Plaintiff is mala fide. The only suggestion that was made was that by the amendment it is possible that the Defendant may be deprived of his plea of limitation. The learned Counsel has not shown how the Defendant is likely to be deprived of his plea of limitation. This vague ground, therefore, is not enough to hold that the act of the Plaintiff is mala fide.