DHANNALAL Vs. HEERALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has made the following submissions:

(2.) Learned counsel submits that apart from the fact that there was no justification given for not incorporating relevant facts and no explanation has been offered for the delay caused in filing the application, it is submitted that in fact, the amendment allowed by the trial Court has caused material change in the nature of the suit as at the time of filing of the suit, there was no claim whatsoever that the suit property is an ancestral property instead the plaintiffs claimed share through Alma. Therefore, the trial Court has committed grave illegality while not addressing upon the nature of the amendment sought to be incorporated in the plaint. Thus, the impugned order suffers from patent jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Per contra, Shri Santosh Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that irrespective of the fact that there was no explanation in the application for not incorporating the facts in the plaint though in the knowledge at the time of filing the suit and no explanation offered for the delay of two years in filing the application, since the amendment is relevant for doing complete justice between the parties and no prejudice being caused to the defendants/respondents, the trial Court did not commit any error on fact and in law by allowing the amendment as the trial has not commenced and only issues have been framed.