PARADIP PORT TRUST Vs. PEARI FISH ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 4 have filed this civil revision against the order of the trial court rejecting the prayer for amendment of the written statement. Oppo site party No. 1 has filed Money Suit No. 232 of 1986 for realisation of Rs. 21,11,500/- and for certain other ancillary reliefs. During the hearing of the case, while P.W. 4 was being examined, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed. The said petition was rejected by the trial court, primarily on the ground of delay in filing the petition for amendment.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that mere delay in filing the petition for amendment cannot be a ground to reject the prayer for amendment and the inconvenience, if any, caused to the plaintiff on account of delay could have been compensated by payment of cost. It has been further submitted that the defendants came to know about the facts sought to be included by way of amendment only during the examination of P.W. 4 and there was no deliberate laches on their part. The learned counsel for the plaintiff opposite party No. 1 while supporting the reasons given by the trial Court, has submitted that if the amendment is allowed at a such belated stage, the plaintiff would be prejudiced as certain new facts are being introduced. He has further submitted that the plea relating to non-joinder of parties raised for the first time in the amendment should not be permitted to be raised in view of the provisions contained in Order 1, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) Law is well-settled that mere delay in filing the petition for amendment should not be the sole ground for rejecting an application for amendment unless the facts sought to be introduced by amendment relate to any cause of action which is barred by time at the time of filing the petition for amendment. In the present case, the defendants sought to introduce certain facts raising the question of maintainability of the suit It is of course true that the plaintiff has already examined a few witnesses and is likely to be inconvenienced by introduction of certain new facts in the written statement and it may require to adduce fresh evidence. However, such inconvenience caused to the plaintiff can be compensated by way of cost. On perusal of the order passed by the trial court and after going through the prayer for amendment. I am of the view that the trial court has illegally refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it on technical ground and, as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.