INTZAR Vs. SAT PARKASH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Kurukshetra, whereby he refused permission to the petitioner-plaintiff" to amend the plaint and add subsequent events.

(2.) THE learned trial Judge was not justified to disallow the amendment. However, in the present case the learned counsel for the respondents has very fairly conceded that the petitioner can lead evidence with regard to matters which he wants to introduce by way of amendment in the plaint. After the evidence is brought by the petitioner, the trial Court will take the evidence into consideration and dispose of the lis. Even otherwise, it is well-settled that if the parties know that a point arises in a case and they produce evidence on it, though it does not find place in the pleadings and no specific issue has been framed on it, the Court can still adjudicate' thereon-vide Ram Niwas and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar and Ors. , (1982) 84 P. L. R. 9. The concession given by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in confirmity with the law laid down in Ram Niwas's case (supra. ). In view of this, the petitioner is permitted to lead evidence with regard to subsequent events which will be taken into consideration by the learned trial Judge along with other evidence on record.

(3.) THIS revision petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs,