NARAYAN OJHA Vs. DEBESH PRASAD MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 filed O.S. No. 303/89 for declaration of right, title and interest over "B" Schedule land; for further declaration that defendants 7 to 15 have not acquired any right, title and interest and possession over the scheduled land by virtue of the sale deeds executed by defendants 1 to 6 in their favour and for recovery of possession. When the suit was ready and about to be taken up for adducing evidence, a petition for amendment of the written statement was filed. In the petition for amendment, defendants 7 to 9 sought to add two sub-paragraphs to paragraphs 14 and 19 of the written statement. The said petition for amendment having been rejected by the trial Court, the present revision has been filed by the defendants.

(2.) In order to appreciate the disputed questions, it is necessary to extract the proposed amendments sought to be incorporated :-

(3.) So far as the amendment to paragraph 19 is concerned, the said prayer was rejected mainly on the point that the petition had been filed at a belated stage. True it is, the petition for amendment was filed at a stage when the suit was otherwise ready for hearing and evidence was about to be adduced. However, law is well settled that mere delay in filing a petition for amendment is not a ground to reject the same unless any other prejudice is caused to the adversary party thereby. Where the effect of amendment at a belated stage is to take away a vested right, ordinarily the Courts are reluctant to allow such amendment. Otherwise, mere delay in filing petition for amendment is not considered to be a ground to reject the prayer for amendment particularly when the inconvenience caused to a party on account of such amendment can be remedied by way of payment of cost. The reasons for rejecting the prayer for addition to paragraph 19 of the written statement appear to be totally unjustified. It is clear that the Civil Judge has refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by illegally refusing the prayer for amendment so far as paragraph 19 of the written statement is concerned.