HIRO MINOR Vs. MAHANT JAMNADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision wrongly styled as second appeal has been filed against an order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 9. 11. 56 in proceedings relating to the amendment of plaint.

(2.) IT appears that in a suit between the parties instituted before the Assistant Collector, Sikar the plaintiff desired to amend the plaint but this application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that it was presented at a very late stare when the entire evidence of the parties had been recorded and further that it was likely to amend the whole case. The plaintiff went in appeal against the order before the learned Addl. Commissioner who however observed that an amendment could be allowed at any stage of the proceeding and that the learned trial court without applying its mind had erroneously held that it was likely to change the nature of the suit. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and the case was sent back to the trial court with the direction to examine the proposed amendment and give its decision according to law. The defendants have now filed a second appeal before us which being incompetent under the provisions of sec. 225 (2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was at the request of the applicants heard as revision petition. IT was urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that the proposed amendment could not be allowed at a belated stage namely, when the parties had examined all their witnesses and the case was fixed for arguments and judgment by the court, as it was likely to prejudice the defence set up by the applicants. IT was also stated that the amendment if allowed shall introduce an entirely new matter and change the nature of the original suit' As against this the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that under O. 6, R. 17 C. P. C. a court can at any stage of the proceedings allow a party to alter or amend its pleadings in such manner and on such terms as to costs etc. as may be just and all amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real points in controversy between the parties. IT was contested that this rule makes it clear that a court has to exercise its judicial discretion to decide whether or not an amendment in the pleadings is essential to meet the ends of justice.