BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed the present revision against the order dtd. 18/4/2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Tarn Taran, vide which the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint was dismissed.

(2.) Perusal of the record would show that the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed by the trial Court on 2/8/2018. The said order has not been assailed by the defendant in any manner. The necessary amendment arising out of acceptance of application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC vis-a-vis the person who has been allowed to be impleaded is sought to be made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Since the application has been allowed on 2/8/2018, the only surviving prayer is in respect of claim No. A in the head note, which is sought to be amended by mentioning total land and khasra number in the suit.

(3.) It is a settled principle of law that all bonafide amendments are to be allowed. An amendment in the pleadings is to be liberally construed so as to consider real controversy between the parties and to give the verdict more satisfactorily. The proviso to the Rule to some extent curtails absolute discretion of the Court to allow amendment at any stage, however knowledge and diligence are the considerations on which bona fides of the party has to be tested in order to prevent frivolous applications for amendment. The object of the Rule is that the Court must try the merit of the case and allow all amendments which may be necessary for determination of real controversy between the parties. In this regard reference can be made to Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (Dead) and ors. (2007) 6 SCC 737 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal vs. K.K. Modi, AIR 2006 SC 1647.