PRITAM SINGH AND ANR. Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Defendants revision petition against an order of the learned Subordinate Judge first class, Kangra allowing an amendment of the plaint.

(2.) The Plaintiffs, who are minors, filed a suit for declaration that a compromise decree was null and void and was not binding on the Plaintiffs. This suit was contested by he Defendants, and evidence was led by the parties. Thereafter the Plaintiffs applied for amendment of the plaint pointing out that they had come to know that pursuant to the decree a sale deed had been executed on behalf of the Plaintiffs minors in favour of the Defendants, and that the plaint should be so amended as to enable the Plaintiffs to seek relief against the sale deed also. The learned Subordinate Judge has allowed the amendment application. The Defendants now apply in revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that the learned Subordinate Judge erred in permitting the amendment of the plaint when he had found that the Respondents were guilty of inordinate delay. It is said that the sale deed was executed in 1965 and the amendment application was made in January 1972. Now the learned Subordinate Judge has taken this circumstance into account, but he has been influenced by the consideration that the Plaintiffs are minors. There is no doubt that an amendment of the pleading should be sought by !the parties within a reasonable period, and unreasonable delay may [constitute a factor in determining whether an amendment should not 'be denied. But it is not in every case that delay will bar an amendment. The Petitioners rely on a number of cases in support of their contention that it will in this case. They refer to Harish Chandra Bajpai and Anr. v/s. Triloki Singh and Anr. : AIR 1957 S.C. 444. In that case the Supreme Court was concerned with an amendment of an election petition, and although the Supreme Court did observe that even in ordinary litigation and order permitting the amendment despite undue delay would be open to attack, the circumstances of the case were wholly different. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also relied on U.P. Government v/s. J. R. Bhatta : AIR 1956 All. 439. That was a case where the reason for seeking amendment was a declaration of law by the Supreme Court after a suit had been filed. The Allah -bad High Court held that the ground constituted no occasion justifying amendment at a late stage, because the decision of the Supreme Court did not in fact bring into existence any new law. The third case cited by learned Counsel for the Petitioners is Gauri Shanker v/s. Hindustan Trust (Pvt). Ltd. and Ors. : AIR 1972 S.C. 2091. There, an amendment was sought by the tenant in an ejectment proceeding. The amendment was sought eight years after the proceeding had been initiated. Having regard to the nature of the proceeding, it is plain that a proper exercise of discretion required rejection of the prayer for amendment.