AYODHYA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. BHAGWAN SHARMA AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred against an order, passed by the Additional Munsiff I, Ranchi, dated 16th July, 2009 in Title Suit No. 123 of 2004, whereby, the amendment application preferred by the present petitioner (original plaintiff) under order VI Rule 17 to be read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, at length, who has submitted that the petitioner is an original plaintiff, who has instituted Title Suit No. 123 of 2004, on the basis of a registered sale-deed in favour of the original plaintiff and thereafter an amendment application was preferred by the petitioner under Order 6Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code as well as under Order I Rule 10 for joining the wife of the present petitioner as plaintiff No. 1 because the sale-deed upon which the original plaintiff is relying upon, is in the name of the wife of the plaintiff and so far as the amendment is concerned, certain other documents and certain facts were also to be brought to the notice of the trial court about the criminal proceedings taken place between the plaintiff and the defendants, which reveals the possession of the original plaintiff upon the suit property.

(3.) It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the present petitioner that trial court has dismissed this application mainly on the ground that in criminal proceedings there is already a final order, passed by the competent authority and, therefore, there is no need to amend the plaint, at all, but, the trial court has lost sight of the fact that while deciding the amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, merit of the amendment is not to be seen, at all. Merit of the amendment can be seen only at the time of final hearing of the suit, in question. This aspect has not been appreciated and hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.