BARMESHWAR YADAV @ BARMESHWAR NATH YADAV SON OF LATE NATHUNI YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SOVAN, P.O. SOVAN, P.S. KRISHNA BRAHMA, DISTRICT Vs. BHRIGUNATH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) By filing this application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-petitioner in the suit has questioned the legal sustainability of the impugned order by which the amendment in the plaint has been allowed.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiff has filed the T.S. No. 148/2004 in which the present petitioner was earlier impleaded only as a proforma defendant (defendant 3rd set). It has been further submitted that in various averments in the plaint also it has been stated that the status of defendant 3rd set is only as a proforma defendant and no relief is being claimed against him. It has been pointed out that the plaintiffs after expiry of 9 years filed a petition for amendment in the plaint whereby they sought to alter the earlier statements with regard to the defendant-petitioner and to change the status of the defendant-petitioner from being proforma defendant to a contesting defendant claiming relief against him also. It has, therefore, been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned court below has committed illegality and material irregularity in allowing the prayer without considering the fact that the proposed amendment was simply an abuse of the process of the court as it involves the total alteration of the earlier stand by the plaintiff and change of the nature and scope of the suit in the manner as above-mentioned.