RANJIT SINGH Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition has been directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 20.9.1989 declining the amendment of the plaint. By way of seeking amendment in the plaint as many as four amendments have been sought which are reproduced below :-

(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that it cannot be said that the pleas sought to be raised by way of amendment are in any way of inconsistent with the original pleadings. Date of death would be proved by leading evidence and if Jawahar Singh has actually died in 1964-65 A.D. as is sought to be contended now by way of amendment, it would be unjust to decline the amendment. Law of amendment, as has been held in various judicial pronouncements, is quite liberal. Moreover, when the plaintiffs wanted to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one, it was observed by the Court that the remedy lay in seeking amendment. When amendment has been sought the same has been declined. May be the defendants did not agree to the amendment at the time when the prayer for withdrawal of the suit was declined, the Court cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. Once the Court had observed that the remedy lay in seeking amendment, the amendment could be declined only by advancing cogent reasoning which is missing. Since the amendments are necessary for determining the questions in controversy finally, the same should have been allowed.

(3.) In the light of the observations made above, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the trial Court is set aside and the amendment, of the plaint is allowed in toto. The amendment, would haveverm be subject to the payment of Rs. 750/- as costs. The trial of the suit be expedited and any case the suit should be decided within one year. The parties in revision are left to bear their own costs.