SIYA SINGH Vs. SABJAWATI KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by defendant No. 1 of a title suit instituted toy the plaintiff for partition of some properties. It is directed against order No. 347, dated the 28th of June, 1962, by which the learned trial Judge has permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint in some particulars.

(2.) What has happened is this: The hearing of the suit concluded before the learned trial Judge on the 9th of April, 1962, and the 8th of May was fixed for delivery of Judgment in the case. On the 19th of April 1962, the plaintiff filed a petition asking for permission to make certain amendments in the plaint. Then, it appears, the plaintiff filed two more petitions, one on the 14th of May and the other on the 22nd of June. Certain details were supplied by the plaintiff in the petition dated the 14th of May, and it was prayed by the petition filed on the 22nd Of June that the amendments may be allowed as given in detail in the petition filed on the 14th of May it may be stated that defendant No. 1 filed several rejoinders objecting to the proposed amendments. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Judge has permitted all the amendments, giving Rs." 30/- as cost to each set of defendants. Liberty has been given to the defendants to file additional written statements if they so desire. Defendant No. 1 has come up to this Court.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the proposed amendments should not have been allowed as the suit was an old one, having been instituted as early as in 1950. It is urged that the plaintiff has merely attempted to make up certain defects which had come into light in the arguments advanced in Court, and, therefore, no indulgence should have been granted to the plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff opposite party has, on the other hand, urged that the court below has taken Into consideration all aspects of the proposed amendments, and when the learned trial Judge has exercised his discretion in favour of the plaintiff, the discretion should not be interfered with. It Is argued that most of the amendments were of a formal nature and the amendments seriously objected to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this Court were not sprung on the contesting defendants as a surprise in the court below, and the amendments proposed by the plain-tiff were merely for the sake of preciseness and clarification.