MAHILA GULAB BAI Vs. JAGDISH RAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioners have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 18.05.2013 passed in case No. COS 118 -A/2003 by 1st Civil Judge Class -I, Guna.

(2.) SHRI D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amendment is clarificatory in nature. Once petitioners are permitted to be substituted as legal representatives, they have right to put forth their own case which may be little different than the case of the original plaintiff. He submits that amendment was necessary for lawful adjudication of the controversy and the Court below has erred in rejecting the same. In support of this contention, he relied on : (1995) 5 SCC 431 (Vidyawati v. Man Mohan and Others.). He also relied on the recent judgment of Supreme Court reported in : 2012 AIR SCW 5419 (Abdul Rehman and Anr. v. Mohd. Ruldu and Ors.). By taking this Court to the pleadings of the original plaint and that of proposed by way of amendment, it is contended that amendment should have been allowed by the Court below.

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