SHIV KUMAR BHANDARI Vs. KAILASH SONI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No. 1 aggrieved against the order dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure P/1) wherein the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of plaint filed by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 has been allowed.

(2.) THE reasoning which has prevailed with the trial Court is that there is no withdrawal of admission and by the proposed amendment only an elaboration of pleadings regarding forgery and fabrication of the documents is sought to be highlighted. In what circumstances the document was obtained by defendant No. 1 and whether it was by playing fraud upon the plaintiff and that the proposed amendment would not change the nature of the suit and would rather facilitate the Court to decide the real controversy between the parties weighed with the Court. The fact that inconsistent pleas could be taken and admission could be explained and therefore on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the rights of the petitioner who would have right to rebut the same, the application was allowed even after framing of issues subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/ - as costs.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent No. 1/plaintiff on the other hand submitted that once the costs have been accepted by the petitioner, he was estopped from challenging the order on merits even though he had filed an application subsequently for withdrawal of statement whereby costs have been accepted on account of the fact that he wanted to file revision petition before this Court. It was further contended that the suit was at an initial stage and only issues had been framed and no evidence had been led when the application for amendment was filed and the amendment would only facilitate the trial Court to decide the controversy in issue. The amendment would help the Court to come to a correct conclusion especially keeping in view the fact that there was allegation of fraud against the petitioner and his brother who was arrayed as respondent No. 2 and in what circumstances the power of attorney was obtained from the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. It was further submitted that attorney was not signed on all pages and had only been given for the purpose of managing the property and not for sale.