HARIHAR PRASAD Vs. BIRESH MANJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Although notices have been issued to the sole opposite party but he did not appear.

(2.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 27.5.2000 passed by Sub - Judge -lX, Gopalganj, in Eviction Suit no. 10 of 1995 whereby the prayer made by the plaintiff - petitioner for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.

(3.) IT is true that there is some negligence and laches on the part of the plaintiff as he did not come up soon after filing of the written statement by the defendant for amendment but the delay alone cannot be the ground for rejecting the prayer of amendment. In my view, it is a fit case in which prayer ought to have been allowed by the learned court below. For the delay and harassment caused to the defendant a cost may be awarded for the purpose of compensation to the defendant -opposite party which l do accordingly. The revision petition is hereby allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned court below to allow the amendment of the plaintiff, as prayed for, by giving scope to pay ad valorem court fee and also court fee for further declaration regarding the sale deed of the defendant on pre -condition of deposit of Rs. 250/ - towards cost which should be deposited within four weeks next from this date before the learned court below.Such deposit on pre -condition shall be disbursed in favour of the defendant -opposite party.