NATHU LAL JAIN Vs. NAGAR NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the request of the learned counsel for both the parties, the final arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed of. The plaintiffs have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 25. 5. 2007 passed by the learned civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial magistrate, First Class, Jaipur City-East, jaipur, whereby an application under O. 6 R. 17, C. P. C. filed by the petitioners for amendment in the plaint, has been dismissed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for injunction in respect of the immovable property wherein he wanted to insert some paras by way of amendment to the effect that the construction was raised after seeking permission from the defendants; he further contended that the trial court rejected the application on the ground that the proceedings of the suit have been delayed whereas there was no delay of proceedings in the present case as the application was filed at the stage where even written statement was not filed by the defendants, the trial court itself took long time in deciding the present application. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial court be set aside and application for amendment be allowed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents contended that the amendment sought in the suit was not at all necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the trial court was right in rejecting the application. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the impugned order passed by the trial court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the application for amendment in the plaint was filed at the stage when written statement has not been filed by the defendants. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the application has been filed only to delay the proceedings of the trial court. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amendment sought in the plaint is necessary and in case it is allowed, no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants as they will have a right to file their written statements to the amended plaint also.