SHIVSAHAY Vs. NANDLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dt. 4-4-84, in Civil Suit No. 9B/81, passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Distt. Judge, Mandsaur/Neemuch, whereby the prayer of the plaintiff/applicant for examination of himself and one witness, and for amendment in relief clause against defendant No. 4 was disallowed, the plaintiff has presented this revision.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.18,993/- on 2-4-1976 against the defendants, but in relief clause the decree was prayed against the defendants 1 to 3 only. The defendants 1 to 4, denied the claim of the plaintiff and the suit is being contested on various grounds. On 11-11-1982, as the plaintiff was ill and was admitted in hospital at Jaipur, son of the plaintiff examined himself and closed the evidence. The defendants 1 to 3 also produced their evidence and therefore, the case was posted for arguments on 4-4-84.

(3.) On 4-4-1984, the plaintiff filed two applications one u/O.18, R.17, Civil P. C., for allowing permission to examine the plaintiff and one witness Nandlal. Another application was filed under O.6, R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby an amendment in relief clause was sought for claiming the decree against the defendant 4, which was originally not mentioned in the prayer clause on the same cause of action and facts. The applications were opposed by the respective defendants. The learned trial Court dismissed the application under O.18, R.17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that when the plaintiff and defendants closed their evidence and the case was fixed for arguments, the power under O.18, R.17, C.P.C. cannot be exercised at the instance of the plaintiff. Another application under O.6, R.17, C.P.C. was dismissed on the ground that the suit was filed on 2-4-1976, and proposed amendment of relief against the defendant No. 4 has become barred by time.