JAIPAL Vs. WAZIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is impugning order dtd. 23/8/2022 (Annexure P5) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat whereby an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel, inter alia submits that the impugned order (Annexure P5) had been passed in utter disregard to the settled principles of law relating to amendment of pleadings. He submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that all the facts which respondent No.1 was seeking to incorporate by way of the proposed amendment, were well within his knowledge much prior to filing of the suit and by way of the amendment, which had been allowed vide impugned order, the entire complexion of the suit had changed. It was submitted that all the averments incorporated by way of amendment were false and fabricated. Still further, he submitted that respondent No.1 had moved an application for amendment of his plaint with an oblique motive to add a relief which on the face of it, was barred by limitation. The plaintiff claimed to have learnt about the sale deed in question after the demise of his mother, who had died in 2016 yet the suit had been filed 5 years later, in the year 2021. Learned counsel submits, that on face of it, the relief of declaration sought qua the sale deed is beyond limitation. He urged that the right course, if at all permissible, would have been to file a separate suit for declaration rather than to seek amendment of the plaint.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel and perused the relevant material on record.