URMILA DEVI Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-petitioner aggrieved by the order of the learned Sub-Judge, Ranchi, in which the learned Sub-Judge has rejected the amendment petition of the petitioner-plaintiff, filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in which plaintiff wanted to add a relief of damages as provided under Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act.

(2.) The learned trial court has held that the petitioner-plaintiff wanted to amend his pleadings and the said fact was in the knowledge of the petitioner that the damages can be claimed in alternative as provided under the Specific Relief Act. He also held that the amendment has been moved at a belated stage and after the commencement of the trial; the plaintiff has not taken due diligence in moving the said amendment application and as such, the amendment application is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the amendment application. The delay in filing the application for the amendment of the pleading is not fatal and no serious prejudice is shown to have caused to the defendant/Opp. Party so to take away any accrued right and the court should take notice of the subsequent event in order to shorten the litigation to preserve and safeguard of both the parties. He further contended that the trial court should have allowed the application to amend his pleading to claim in alternative for compensation.