TULSI Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the parties agree that this revision petition be decided at the stage of motion hearing itself. Admitted.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the trial court was in error in not allowing the amendment of the plaint. The power to allow amendment under Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil procedure is very side. It has been repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court that this beneficial power of amendment of pleading should be liberally interpreted. This right to amend the pleadings can, be denied to a party if it does not come to the Court with clean, hands.

(3.) From the report of the local Commissioner, it transpires that the plaintiff is not in actual possession of the property in dispute. He has made simple prayer for allowing the amendment of the plaint to convert the suit for declaration into one of possession. Ujagar Singh, J. in Sardara Singh v. Smt. Gulwant Kaur and others,1989 PunLJ 284, in similar circumstances, allowed the amendment of the plaint.