SATPAL Vs. SHYAMBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I fail to locate any legal infirmity in the well-reasoned words in the order of the learned trial Court dismissing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner presented under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint at the fag-end of the trial when it is ripe for hearing. The principle of caveat emptor applies when the plaintiff has purchased properties from co-sharers of smaller parcels of land through several sale deeds from out of the joint property in excess of the shares of the sellers, as is the counter case set up by the defendants contending that sales are in excess of entitlements to suit land which have not been partitioned. Therefore, defendants say the sale deeds have to be cut down to size according to un-partitioned title of each of the vendors as per their shares.

(2.) The trial judge reasons that these facts were to the plaintiffs knowledge even before the commencement of the suit and he should have pleaded it in the plaint. Therefore, he cannot be heard to seek introduction of these facts at a belated stage, which fact he obviously must have and will deemed to be aware of at the time of registration had he exercised due diligence of the revenue record at the time of purchase. The learned trial judge has not committed any error in holding that such an amendment will alter the character and nature of the suit, after the evidence has been adduced by the parties. The trial is at the end stage and the case is fixed for arguments reaching maturity after years of contest.

(3.) Interestingly, before he filed the present application, the petitioner's first attempt was to withdraw his entire suit with permission to file again. The request was repelled by the trial Court. He then turned around to launch an attack through amendment of plaint.