GOBINDA CHANDRA DAS Vs. DINESH JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present challenge is directed against an order whereby the application for amendment of plaint filed by the petitioner was rejected by the court below on two-fold grounds. It was held by the trial court that since the amendment also included a prayer for addition of a party, the prayer for whose addition under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed earlier, that part of the amendment could not be allowed. The trial court went on to hold that since such amendment could not be allowed partially, the prayer of the petitioner could not be spilt up, thereby allowing the other portion of the amendment. Moreover, it was held that the amendment would change the nature and character of the suit.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the amendment pertains to a subsequent event, being an alleged demolition of bath, privy and latrines - which are the bone of contention in the suit - by the opposite parties allegedly on March 28, 2016. It is argued that both the grounds attributed by the trial court for rejection of the amendment were not valid in law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants/opposite parties submits that an injunction was obtained by the plaintiff/petitioner from the trial court, which was thereafter affirmed in appeal in August 2016. Even at that juncture, the petitioner did not contend that there was no existence of the said bath, privy and latrines.