RAJ KUMAR Vs. NARAIN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, allowing the application for amendment of the plaint in first appeal. The amendment sought for was that plaintiff wanted to correct the description of the property according to the Site plan dated 6th of October, 1991, prepared by the Local Commissioner who was so appointed to demarcate Khasra No. 3676 and to report that suit property was situated in Khasra No. 3675.

(2.) MR. S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proposed amendment cannot be allowed so as to enable the plaintiff to fill in the lacuna in the pleadings. He also submitted that the amendment sought is not bonafide, and it introduces a new and distinct cause of action. In support of his agruments, he relied upon the following judgments :

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr C. B. Goel, learned counsel for the plaintiff (respondent herein) submitted that the revision petition is not maintainable because the amendment was allowed subject to payment of costs. He placed on record a certified copy of order dated 16th of October, 1991, in order to show that the costs of Rs. 900/- were tendered and accepted.