SMT. DEVBALA BHATT Vs. GANESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the learned Munsif -Ist, Dhanbad dated 5 October, 2007, below an application preferred by the present petitioner (original plaintiff) for amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 42 of 2006 and as this amendment application preferred by the original plaintiff has been dismissed by the trial court, this writ petition has been preferred.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner is an original plaintiff, who has instituted Title (Eviction) Suit No. 42 of 2006 mainly on the ground that the respondent, who is original defendant, is not paying the rent. Initially, in the plaint, there was some mistake in mentioning the period, for which, the rent is not paid to the original plaintiff. This period was mentioned as period running from June, 2006 to August, 2006, but, later on, when the evidence of the plaintiffs side was going on, the original plaintiff gave an application for amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure that paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the original plaint are required to be amended and mainly the period, for which, the rent is not paid was wrongly mentioned in the plaint as June, 2006 to August, 2006, but, it ought to have been June, 2005 to January, 2006 and onwards, and the trial court has not appreciated that. By this amendment, nature of the suit will' remain as it is. Only the period of default will be changed. This is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by the trial court and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The amendment will not affect the very root of the case and therefore, it should be allowed. Plaintiffs evidence is going on and therefore, no prejudice is going to cause to the original defendant and otherwise also, the petitioner (original plaintiff) is ready to pay the token cost for allowing this amendment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner his also submitted that it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh as reported in, 2009 (4) JLJR 191 SC especially, in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8, which read as under:

(3.) THOUGH the respondent is served, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent.