ASHA BHATIA Vs. VEENA BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this petition challenging the order dated 28.5.2012 whereby application moved by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC' for short), was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners wanted to incorporate certain facts in the plaint as they were inadvertently not mentioned in the plaint. Further the petitioners wanted to make some corrections in the plaint which had arisen on account of typographical errors. Learned counsel has further submitted that, although, issues have been framed but so far no evidence had been led by the petitioners. The amendment sought by the petitioners was very necessary for the just decision of the case. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another',, 2010 (1) CCC 0446, wherein it was held as under: - -

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that by way of amendment, the petitioners wanted to withdraw the admissions made by them in the plaint.

(3.) THUS , as per the above provision, the Court has ample power to allow either of the party to amend its pleadings which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. However, as per the proviso the application for amendment shall not be allowed after the trial has commenced.