ASHOK KUMAR EX-ACCOUNTANT MARKFED Vs. MARKFED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Sub -Judge II Class, Ferozepur.

(2.) THE amendment sought for by the plaintiff -petitioner in his plaint is nothing more than incorporation of a fact that he had filed a departmental appeal against the order of dismissal and the same was pending before the Appellate Authority on the date of filing of the suit.

(3.) THE reason assigned by the learned trial Court for not exercise of its discretion in favour of the petitioner is not legally sustainable. Clearly the learned trial court has overlooked the settled principle of law that delay in itself cannot be a ground for denying amendment in the pleadings. Without elaborating further, I refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material, Gurgaon. : A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1269. Refusal of the amendment by the trial Court will prejudice the cause of the petitioner and, therefore, it is necessary to set aside the impugned order.