HUSSAIN KHAN Vs. ALLANOOR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners - defendants filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India on 29. 10. 2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dtd. 6. 10. 2003 (Annex. 7) passed by the learned Additional Distt. Judge, Nagaur (respondent No. 3) by which the learned Additional Dist. Judge allowed the application (Annex. 5) filed by the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. at the cost of Rs. 5000/- and the amendments were made in the plaint (Annex. 1) be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioners - defendants are as under: i) That the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a civil suit for declaration, partition and perpetual injunction in the court of learned Additional Distt. Judge, Nagaur (respondent No. 3) against the defendants - petitioners. A copy of the plaint is marked as Annex. 1. ii) That the written statement (Annex. 2) was filed by the petitioners - defendants. iii) That the respondent No. 1 filed rejoinder (Annex. 3) to the written statement filed by petitioners - defendants. iv) Further case of the petitioners - defendants is that after pleadings were completed by the parties, the issues were framed and the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) was examined in the court as P. W. 1 on 1. 5. 2003 and his statement is marked as Annex. 4. v) Further case of the petitioners - defendants is that on 8. 7. 2003 when the case was posted for the remaining evidence of respondent No. 1 - plaintiff, an application (Annex. 5) under Section 6 Rule 17 was filed by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) seeking amendment in his plaint. vi) Further case of the petitioners - defendants is that reply (Annex. 6) to that application (Annex. 5) was filed by the petitioners - defendants. vii) THE learned additional Distt. Judge through impugned order dtd. 6. 10. 2003 (Annex. 7) allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff) inter alia holding : i) That amendments which have been sought by the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff are too lengthy and if the amendments are allowed, the admission made by the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff would be controverted into non-admission. ii) That the admissions made by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) were made by him by bonafide mistake. iii) That by the amendments sought by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff), the nature of the suit does not change. iv) That a party can amend his own mistake which had occurred in his pleadings either in the plaint or in the written statement. v) That the mistake committed by the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff in making admissions in his plaint (Annex. 1) or in his rejoinder (Annex. 3) had come to his knowledge, when he was cross- examined as P. W. 1 by the defendants - petitioners. vi) That no doubt rejoinder (Annex. 3) was filed by respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) on 25. 1. 1997 and the application (Annex. 5) for amendment of the plaint (Annex. 1) was filed on 8. 7. 2003 and this shows gross negligence on the part of respondent No. 1 - plaintiff, but merely on the ground of negligence and bonafide mistake, amendments should not be refused, but said amendments should be allowed with heavy cost. vii) Aggrieved from the order dtd. 6. 10. 2003 (Annex. 7) passed by the learned Additional Distt. Judge (respondent No. 3), this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners - defendants.

(3.) THE power to allow an amendment is undoubtedly wide and may at any stage be appropriately exercised in the interest of justice, the law of limitation notwithstanding. But the exercise of such far-reaching discretionary powers is governed by judicial considerations and wider the discretion, greater ought to be the care and circumspection on the part of the Court.