GURMEET SINGH Vs. PARMINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is against the order dismissing an application for amendment of the plaint. Through the amendment the quondam minor sought to make a reference to a decree that had been earlier obtained by him during his minority through his mother as a next friend in relation of a portion of the suit property. The application was resisted as having been brought during the course of trial and that did not fulfill the statutory conditions in entertaining applications for amendment after the commencement of trial. The Court upheld the objection and dismissed the petition. This Court has earlier ordered notice in the application and on being served the respondent, the respondents reiterate the plea that no explanation is given as to why this was not stated in the earlier pleading. It is further contended that there is a reference in the suit itself that the earlier decree obtained had been rendered more than 12 years earlier and therefore he cannot take any benefit under the same. According to the counsel for the respondent a valuable right as accrued to the defendant cannot be taken away by the amendment.

(2.) I will not find the objections raised as tenable to secure a dismissal of the petition. If the earlier decree had been during the minority of the plaintiff, a personal knowledge cannot be attributed to him and any legal effect he will secure through any benefit or detriment that the decree contained cannot be wished away to contend that a new right has accrued to him by a failure to refer to the decree in suit. A quondam minor's plea with reference to an earlier decree rendered during minority shall be permitted to be brought through and the Courts shall be lenient to such a party. I would test this application on a singular consideration of whether any prejudice could be caused to the respondent. In my view, there can be no prejudice, for, no right accrued afresh by a non -reference to an earlier decree obtained by the plaintiff during his minority. In fact earlier decree itself appears to have been attempted to be set aside by an application for setting aside the decree. The decree itself may not have become final but to whatever merit if there should be a reference to earlier proceedings, I will see no prejudice coming in the way.