RAMGOPAL KANAUDIA Vs. SHEO PRASAD RONGTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs of a pending suit have filed this Civil Revisional application directed against an order passed by the trial Court on the 25th January, 1972, allowing the defendant's prayer for making certain amendments in his additional written statement filed in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant had filed the additional written statement on the 24th November 1971, in which it has been stated, that, the defendant had remitted the rent for the months of February to June to Shri Brij Mohan Kejriwal. Further, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this additional written statement the defendant had used the expression "vendor of the plff" more than once. During the course of the trial of the suit, the defendant filed an application on the 20th January, 1972 praying, that, the name Sri Brijmohan Kejriwal, occurring in paragraph 4 of the additional written statement may be allowed to be amended to "Lakshmichand and Harishchandra" and the defendant prayed that, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the additional written statement the expression "vendor of the plff" should be allowed to be amended to "Lakshmichand and Harichandra". These prayers have been allowed by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order. The learned Judge has held, that, the name Brijmohan Kejriwal had been mistakenly given in the additional written statement in place of "Lakshmichand Harishchandra" and that he was satisfied, that, the mistake was a bona fide one.

(2.) Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners has urged, that, the defendant has changed the entire nature of his case by the amendments which have now been allowed and that the amendments have been allowed after the plaintiffs had dosed their case and after the defendants had examined a number of witnesses and, therefore, The impugned order should be set aside. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not think, that, this Court can interfere in its revisional jurisdiction, when the trial Judge has held, that, by bona fide mistake, the defendant had mentioned the name of Brijmohan Kejriwal in his additional written statement. If the name of Brijmohan Kejriwal is replaced by the name Lakshmichand Harichandra in paragraph 4 of the additional written statement, then the expression "vendor of the plff", occurring in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the additional written statement, should also be changed to Lakshmichand Harichandra. In considering the defendants application for amendment, the learned Judge has looked into some of the documents filed by the plaintiffs themselves, which went to indicate, that, the defendant has mistakenly mentioned the name of Brijmohan Kejriwal in the additional written statement. At this stage, the Court cannot go into the respective merits of the cases of the parties and it is clear, that, the trial Judge was not unmindful of the fact, that, the defendant had prayed for amendment during the course of the hearing of the suit The learned Judge has come to the conclusion, that, the plaintiffs can be compensated by costs and he gave an opportunity to the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence if they so liked, necessitated by the amendment of the defendant's additional written statement. A substantial amount of cost was also given in favour of the plaintiffs. I do not think, that, it will be right to hold, that, the defendant changed the entire nature of his case by asking for amendment of the additional written statement, as the learned trial Judge took into consideration the defendant's original case mentioned in paragraph 19 (a) of his original written statement and comparing this paragraph with paragraphs 4 and 5 of the additional written statement, the learned Judge came to the conclusion, that, certain statements had been made in the additional written statement by mistake.

(3.) For the reasons given above, I do not think, that, the civil revisional application can succeed and it is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order for costs.