DUND BAHADUR SINGH Vs. LAL BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by some of the defendants of Title Suit No. 82 of 1965 pending in the court of the First Munsif, Begusarai, and it is directed against an order passed by the learned Munsif on the 3rd May, 1967 allowing the plaintiff's prayer for making certain amendments in his plaint.

(2.) It is contended that the amendment matter arising out of a long petition filed by the plaintiff, to which objections were taken by a petition of rejoinder by the contesting defendants has been disposed of by the learned Munsif in about three lines by stating only that he has heard the parties and the amendments will be allowed on payment of Rs. 30 as costs. It is contended that the learned Munsif has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and to the questions, which he was bound to consider under Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and although the course adopted by the learned Munsif in disposing of this amendment matter cannot be approved, there is no necessity for interference as the proposed amendments did not really change the controversy between the parties and, as a matter of fact, these amendments were quite necessary for determining the real questions agitated by the parties. In future, the learned Munsif should realise that such matters are governed by Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure and that it is the duty of the court to consider the in gredients of Rule 17 of the Order before the amendments of pleadings are allowed.

(3.) I shall now deal with the amendments proposed by the plaintiff and indicate that the actual order of the learned Munsif allowing the amendments to be made in the plaint was a correct one although he has not Riven any reasons for his conclusions. The proposed amendments are to be found in paragraph 3 of the petition for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Sub-paragraph (A) of that paragraph asked for some corrections to be made in certain dates mentioned in paragraphs 4, 18, 20 and 29A of the plaint. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has stated that these dates, except the year of 1311 Fasli, will be borne out by documentary evidence which will be filed in due course. For instance, in paragraph 4 of the plaint, the date of a registered mortgage bond was mentioned as 15th April, 1911. The prayer now is that this date should be changed to 16th May, 1911. It is stated that the registered mortgage bond was really executed on the 15th May, 1911 and not on the 15th April, 1911 and the latter date was mentioned by mistake and it will appear later on that this document was executed on the 15th May, 1911 and registered on the 16th May, 1911. Then, in paragraph 18 of the plaint, a year was mentioned as 1311 Fasli. It is stated that this was an obvious typing mistake for 1911, A. D. because the mortgage bond Itself came into existence in 1911- Haying heard learned counsel for the parties I think the amendments proposed in sub-paragraph (A) of paragraph 3 of the petition for amendment of plaint really arise out of mistakes in typing or otherwise and, therefore, these amendments should be allowed.