MANOJ KUMAR SAO Vs. BINOD KUMAR SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 17/8/2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) I, Giridih in Eviction Suit No.01 of 2014, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) I, Giridih has been pleased to reject the application dtd. 20/2/2020 filed by the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that learned Trial Court by rejecting the amendment application, committed grave illegality as amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the disputes between the parties. As per him, at any stage, amendment of the plaint can be allowed and the discretionary power should have been exercised in favour of the plaintiff in this case, so as to bring to an end to the real dispute and issues between the parties. As per him, the amendment is necessary because of the fact that the defendant-opposite party has claimed title over the property in question, which necessitated the plaintiff-petitioner to seek amendment of the plaint by seeking a declaration of his independent right over the property.

(3.) Counsel for the defendant-opposite party submitted that by filing the amendment application, plaintiff-petitioner wants to convert a eviction suit to a title suit, which cannot be allowed. It is well settled principle that nature of the suit cannot be allowed to be changed by filing an amendment application, that too at the stage of final argument of the suit when evidence has already been led.