GOPI Vs. DURGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order, the learned court below has dismissed the petitioner-plaintiff's application for amendment of the plaint. The main reason given by the learned Court below is that the amendment will change the nature of the suit, and, therefore, simply because the property is same and the parties are same, the amendment cannot be allowed.

(2.) Suffice it to say that true it is that the amendment will expand the scope of the suit to some extent, but then the fact that does remain is that the amendment was applied at a stage when the suit was at threshold, inasmuch as it was filed on 17.7.1987 and the amendment application had been filed on 28.1.1988 by which time only written statement has been filed. The fact also does remain that the amendment seeks to incorporate some subsequent as well as some event which came to plaintiff's knowledge from written statement itself.

(3.) It is true that the plaintiff could very well have filed a separate suit for the relief sought to be added by way of amendment but at the same time it is also true that as on the date of the filing of the amendment application, the claim sought to be included was very much within the limitation and if now or even as on the date of the passing of the impugned order, a separate suit were to be filed, it was likely to be thrown out as time barred. In these circumstances, taking an overall view of the matter, I am of the view that the amendment application was required to be allowed which had been kept pending in the learned trial Court for approximately six years.