SUMANA DEVI Vs. DARSHAN PAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.05.2014 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned trial Court, whereby application for amendment in the plaint moved by the petitioner-plaintiff, was declined.

(2.) During the course of hearing, when confronted as to what prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendants-respondents, learned counsel for respondent No.3 could not point out any such prejudice and rightly so, it being a matter of record. No doubt that the applicant-petitioner/plaintiff ought to have been more careful, while filing the suit including all the properties therein. However, when the particulars of the properties, sought to be included in the suit by way of amendment, are not in dispute nor the ownership thereof is being disputed by the defendants, coupled with the fact that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration on the basis of inheritance, the learned trial Court misdirected itself, while passing the impugned order, declining the prayer of the plaintiff for amendment in the plaint, with a view to include one property of village Bibipur.

(3.) In fact, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case obtaining on the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that allowing the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment in the plaint would not only avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties, but it shall also facilitate the learned trial Court to arrive at a just conclusion, with a view to do complete and substantial justice between the parties. It is the settled proposition of law that every Court of law must make an endeavour to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties, while effectively deciding the lis between the parties.