VINOY KUMAR GUPTA Vs. AMBIKA MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are defendants in Title Suit No. 9 of 2004 (38 of 2001) which was filed by the sole opposite party for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction against the defendants and for other ancillary reliefs.

(2.) THE defendants-petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 15.12.2004, passed in the aforesaid suit by which the learned Munsif (Execution), Gaya, had allowed the plaintiff's petition for amendment of his plaint.

(3.) IT may also be pointed out that hearing of the suit has not yet started and hence it can not be presumed that the trial has begun. Thus, there is no question of any legal bar to the filling of the amendment petition. So far the delay in filing of the amendment petition is concerned, the plaintiff-opposite party has given the reasons for it in his amendment petition after considering which the learned Court below has allowed the said petition. The order of the learned Court below is also in accordance with the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Prem Bakshi and Ors. v. Dharam Dev and Ors., reported in 2002 (2) PLJR (SC) 187, and hence I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned Court below and accordingly this civil revision is dismissed. However, the defendants-petitioners, if advised, may file their additional written statement which should be confined to the amended pleadings in the plaint.