PREMRAJ Vs. GAVRI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by Premraj, defendant No. 6, against an order of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur, refusing to allow an amendment of the written statement.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been taken that this Court has no power to interfere with the order of the trial court under sec. 115 c) C. P. C. Reliance is placed on an unreported decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam vs. Ram Autar (Civil appeal No 505 /1965 decided on 7-2-67 ). In that case it has nowhere been held that the High Court cannot interfere in revision under sec. 115 with an order allowing an amendment of the plaint or disallowing it. The revision application was filed before the Allahabad High Court in that case against an order of the trial court refusing an amendment of the plaint. The learned single Judge of the High Court when deciding the case was under the impression that it was an appeal. On this ground their Lordships set aside the judgment of the High Court. As by then an appeal had been filed in the High Court against the decree, their Lordships directed that it was appropriate that the question whether the amendment should be allowed be considered by the High Court in that appeal. In Keshardeo vs. Radha Kishen (l) the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Venkatagiri Ayyangar vs. Hindu Religious Endowments Board Madras (2) was quoted with approval. Their Lordships of the Privy Council held that a revision lies under sec. 115 (c) if the court has committed some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may affect the ultimate decision. Allowing or disallowing of an amendment is a procedural matter and a revision lies against the order under sec. 115 (c ).