OM KANWAR Vs. RAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 14.05.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pataudi, vide which the application filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 5 for amendment of plaint has been allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially the respondents have filed an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') for addition of name of Smt. Devi as one of the plaintiffs but the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on the basis of the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents vide order dated 26.08.2013. They again filed an application, which was allowed by learned trial Court vide order dated 15.02.2014 and Smt. Devi was allowed to be impleaded as plaintiff. Then they filed the third application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint seeking to introduce various alterations in the plaint. He contended that the learned trial Court has erred in entertaining the repeated applications filed by the respondents for amendment of the plaint. He contended that the trial has already started. Five witnesses have already been recorded. If the amendment is allowed, it will change the nature of the suit and will cause delay in disposal of the case. Thus, he contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand learned counsel for the plaintiffsrespondents contended that the necessity has arisen for amendment in the plaint due to impleading of Smt. Devi as one of the plaintiff. The shares claimed in the plaint have to be corrected accordingly. No new case is being introduced and the amendment will not cause any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.