SHYAMA CHARAN MISHRA Vs. KAMALA DEBYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for setting -aside the order dated 6.12.2004 passed by the Sub -Judge -II, Deoghar in Title Suit No. 44/02 whereby the petitioners application dated 11.9.2003 praying amendments in the plaint has been rejected. The petitioners grievance is that learned Court below has erroneously rejected the petitioners prayer for amendments mainly on the ground that plaintiff petitioner has sought several amendments in the plaint though he had already filed a lengthy plaint of 61 pages and is expected to incorporate every thing. The Court below has also observed that if the proposed amendments are allowed, the same would change the nature of the suit, though no reason has been recorded for arriving at the said conclusion.

(2.) MR . K.P. Dev, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though number of amendments in the plaint have been sought for, the proposed amendments are formal in nature and number of the proposed amendments are intended to correct the typographical errors in the plaint which could not be earlier detected. The same do not in any way go to change the nature of the suit. It has been submitted that no amendment has been sought in the relief prayed for in the plaint. Learned Counsel submitted that learned Court below has mechanically rejected the petitioners prayer on the ground that the several amendments are prayed in the plaint which is a lengthy one and the plaintiff should have incorporated the required statements. It has been submitted that if the proposed amendments are not allowed, the complications may arise in future and it is necessary in the interest of justice plaintiff may be allowed to correct errors in the plaint at the initial stage of the suit.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records. I find that most of the amendments prayed for are purely formal in nature and are intended to correct the typographical errors crept in the original plaint. By some of the amendments, some facts arc sought to be introduced, but the same are inconsequential in nature and the same do not in any way go to change the nature of the suit. None of the amendments causes withdrawal of any admission made in the plaint. The decision of the Supreme Court in Heeralal. supra, was on different facts and the same is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Learned Court below has casually observed that the proposed amendments, if allowed, would change the nature of the suit though no cogent reason has been recorded for holding as such. As the suit is at the preliminary stage and even the trial has not begun, it would be in the interest of justice that the errors in the plaint be corrected and the facts which are necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the controversies involved in the suit are brought on record.