NAWAL KISHORE Vs. CIVIL JUDGE & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set -aside the order dated 22nd March, 2012, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kotputli, District Jaipur dismissed the application of the plaintiff -petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. The plaintiff -petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants -respondents before the learned trial court. A written statement of defence came to be filed by the defendants -respondents. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff -petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC imploring to permit them to amend the pleadings. The learned trial court having analyzed the matter in detail, vide order dated 22nd March, 2012, dismissed the said application observing that the amendment, as sought, was quite different from the original pleadings and if the amendment, sought for, was allowed, it would change the entire nature of the suit.

(2.) IT is relevant to record that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to upset the pure findings of fact. It is also a settled proposition of law that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution can be invoked only when the impugned order is found to be perverse or contrary to material or it results in manifesting injustice. In the case on hand, the impugned order is found to be just and apt and in my view, it does not warrant any intervention.