YUSUF Vs. KIRPA SHANKAR JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners (original plaintiffs) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order, passed by the Sub Judge-IV, Ranchi, dated 17th May, 2008 in Title Suit No. 12 of 1999 (Annexure 4 to the memo of petition), whereby, the application preferred by the petitioners (original plaintiffs) under Order 6 Rule 17, to be read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment in the plaint, has been rejected.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, who has submitted that the petitioners are the original plaintiffs, who have filed Title Suit No. 12 of 1999 and in paragraph nos. 10(a) and 10(b) of the plaint, certain sale deeds have been referred, which have been relied upon by the original defendants. Thus, there is already an averment in the aforesaid paragraphs of the plaint that these sale deeds are null and void, but, there was no consequent prayer for declaration of those sale deeds as null and void and, therefore, a separate application under Order 6 Rule 17, to be read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was preferred by the petitioners in Title Suit No. 12 of 1999 on 3rd April, 2008 for amending the prayer portion. The said application is at Annexure 2 to the memo of petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that by allowing this amendment, the nature of the suit will not be changes, on the contrary, the amendment will facilitate the trial court in arriving at a correct decision upon the dispute between the parties. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this amendment application has been preferred not at the fag end of the whole trial, but, the evidences of the plaintiffs' side witnesses is going on and, thus, no prejudice is going to cause to the original defendants. Even otherwise also, this averment is already referred in paragraph nos. 10(a) and 10(b) of the plaint and, therefore, the order, passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside and the amendment application ought to have been allowed.

(3.) Though the respondents are served with the notices, nobody appears on their behalf.