CHAUTH MAL Vs. MANOHAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint is under challenge in this revision petition learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the amendment was necessitated because of certain misdescriptions related to the property which was the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff wanted to put certain facts on record stated in the application by getting the plaint amended reflecting correct position according to him. Earlier the sale deed dated 11.5.1976 was under challenge. The property which was sold through this sale deed was a portion of survey number 2825 and 2825 ka. It was stated in the plaint that the suit was within limitation from the date of knowledge of the sale deed which was stated to be in 1983. The plaintiff thereafter came to know that the property was misdescribed in the plaint and, therefore, an amendment had to be incorporated to bring the correct survey numbers on record. Originally, in the plaint survey numbers 2829/3651/2 were stated to be sold through sale deed dated 11.5.76 and, therefore, those survey numbers had to be substituted by correct survey numbers 2825/2825 ka. There were other misdescriptions also to be corrected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the non-petitioners submitted that the nature of the suit was being attempted to be changed by adding one more sale deed dated 1.1.75 in the subject-matter of the suit and scope of suit was tried to be widened. It was also submitted that the sale deed dated 1.1.75 could not be challenged after 13 years because the suit filed in the year 1983 was beyond limitation for challenging the sale deed dated 1.1.75.

(3.) The relevant considerations for deciding an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code. are that the application is made bona fide and it was necessary for the final determination of the real questions in controversy between the parties. It cannot be said that the plaintiff had any mala fides in seeking amendment. So far as the misdescriptions are concerned, there could be no objection to the amendment so as to bring the correct position on record. As regards the amendment, challenging the sale deed dated 1.1.75 being ex facie beyond limitation, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the limitation is claimed from the date of knowledge of the sale deed and even the sale deed dated 11.5.76 challenged in the original plaint, limitation is being claimed from the date of knowledge in the year 1983. After the amendment the same plea would apply to the sale deed dated 1.1.75 and the limitation would be claimed on the basis of knowledge of that sale deed also in the year 1983.