RAKESH CHAND Vs. RAJINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioner/ defendant has challenged the order passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No.1, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P., in C.M.A. No.020504001942010, under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, in Civil Suit No.743 of 2013, titled as Rajinder Kumar Versus Prakash Chand, vide which Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment an application filed by the respondent herein who is the plaintiff before the learned trial Court, for amendment of the plaint, has been allowed.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondent/ plaintiff has filed a suit against the present petitioner for declaration, praying for the following relief:-­ "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view the submissions made above, a decree of declaration declaring the gift, exchange, settlement deed null and void and not operative on the rights of the plaintiff just these documents are the outcome of connivance with the defendant and fraud and subsequent mutation also be adjudged wrong and illegal and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff as the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to succeed as per Tehrir and the same is binding upon them being signatory of the same being the property is joint Hindu and ancestral one and in case the defendant succeed in dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land then a decree for joint possession be passed or any other relief which Hon'ble Court deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the interest of justice and justice be done ".

(3.) The suit was instituted somewhere in the year 2013. At the stage of arguments of the suit, an application was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the of the pleadings of the plaint. It was mentioned in the said application that plaintiff intended to incorporate para 4 (a) in the plaint as the same was necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. It was also mentioned in the same that the amendment sought would not change the nature of the suit as the proposed amendment was already clarificatory in nature.