SUMAN AGRAWAL Vs. RAJESH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14.9.2012 passed in Civil Suit No. 674-A/2007 by 19th Civil Judge, Class II, Bhopal allowing the application of the respondents/plaintiffs for amendment in the plaint. It is contended that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit initially for declaration and permanent injunction in mandatory form. An application for amendment was made by the respondent/plaintiff, which was contested by the petitioner. The said application was rejected vide order dated 30.6.2010. A writ petition was preferred before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the respondents/plaintiffs challenging such order of trial court and holding that no error was committed by the court below in rejecting the application of the respondents/plaintiffs, the said writ petition was dismissed. Again with a malafide intention, on account of certain events, which have taken place subsequent to filing of suit, the amendment application was repeated by the respondents/plaintiffs, which was though opposed, but has been allowed by the impugned order. Therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed.

(2.) It is contended by the petitioner that the application for amendment in the plaint was once rejected and the very same pleadings cannot be allowed to be inserted in a subsequent application, on the application of principles of res judicata, therefore, the order passed by the court below is bad in law. It is thus contended that the writ petition is liable to be allowed and the order impugned is liable to be set aside.

(3.) By filing a return, respondents/plaintiffs have contended that such a plea could not be raised by the petitioner in this writ petition especially when they have already made consequential amendment in the written statement, with respect to the amended pleadings raised in the plaint. It is contended that certain events have taken place of which action was initiated by the respondents/plaintiffs, but since in the civil litigation the relief in that respect was required to be claimed, the amendment was made. After due consideration of law, the application has been allowed by the court below and, therefore, such an order of the trial court need not be interfered in this petition. It is put forth that in given circumstances principles of res judicata would not be attracted at all and, therefore, the order impugned in the writ petition is not liable to be set aside. It is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.