KHADAHAR MAHTO Vs. MUKTI RAM AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred by the original plaintiff of Title Suit No. 127 of 2006 against the order, passed by the learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat dated 7th June 2010 in Title Suit No. 127 of 2006 whereby, an application given by the original plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment in the plaint has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner (original plaintiff) at length, who has mainly submitted that the narration of a suit property in the original plaint so far as khata number and plot number are concerned and so far as total area of the suit property is concerned, have been kept as it is. What is sought to be amended is the boundary of east, north, south sides persons' name are to be changed otherwise, there is no material amendment at all in the plaint. Neither the nature of the suit will be changed by the proposed amendment, nor any prejudice is going to be cause to the original defendants. Examination of plaintiff's side witnesses is going on. Thus, the amendment ought to have been allowed by the trial court and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel for the petitioner and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby, quash and set aside the order, passed by the learned Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat dated 7th June, 2010 in Title Suit No. 127 of 2006 mainly on the following facts and reasons: -