DROPDI Vs. HEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner ­ defendant has filed the present writ petition against the order dtd.6.4.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Nokha, Bikaner in Civil Suit No.31/2009 ­ Heera and ors. V/s Dropadi and anr. whereby the learned trial Court allowed the application under Section 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiff sought to add para No.7A in the plaint explaining the lineage of the suit property in question from ancestors in the present suit filed for cancellation of Will by the plaintiff. The learned trial Court found it appropriate to allow such amendment on the ground that the plaintiffs were illiterate ladies and only upon proper legal advice, they sought this amendment to incorporate the pleadings in the plaint to the effect of lineage of the suit property through ancestors. The detailed reasons given in the impugned order dtd.6.4.2013 allowing such amendment with payment of cost of Rs.600/- to the defendants does not require any interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, if the learned trial Court has found such amendment to be in tuned with the suit itself and has allowed the same subject to payment of cost to the defendants, such order does not require any reversal by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that scope of interference in the interlocutory order is very limited. Even if amendment has been allowed after the plaintiffs' evidence was over, the learned trial Court in its discretion can record the evidence of the plaintiffs again to the extent of amendment in the pleadings allowed by it and therefore, such order by the learned trial Court which are subservient to the interest of justice are not required to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.