UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK Vs. ROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 18-11-1980 of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, whereby the plaintiff's application for amendment dated 29-8-1980, was allowed on costs of Rs. 100/ -.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present revision petition, may, briefly, be stated as under: -

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am clearly of the opinion that this revision petition is completely devoid of any force and the revision petition can be disposed of even on the preliminary objection raised by Shri Singhvi regarding the maintainability of the revision petition. In this case the issues were framed on 5-1-1979 and thereafter the case was posted for the plaintiff's evidence, but so far no evidence of the plaintiff has been recorded and the plaintiff presented the application for amendment on 29-8-1980. Considering the stage of the case, in my opinion, it is clear and that it cannot be conceived that the amendment, which has been allowed by the trial court, would in any way cause prejudice to the defendants, as it would be open to the defendants to raise all possible defences, which are available to them in the written statement, which they may file to the amended plaint. By the amendment no failure of justice would be occasioned, nor any irreparable injury would be caused to the defendants. On the contrary, the cause of justice would be advanced, as the available grounds for eviction can be fought out by the parties in this litigation and their rights and liabilities with respect to eviction would be finally determined and the parties would not be driven to another litigation. I thus, uphold the preliminary objection.