Sukhdev Raj And Anr. vs Sangeeta Budh Raja And Anr.
1991 Latest Caselaw 486 Del

JUDGMENT

Santosh Duggal, J.

(1) This revision petition is directed against an order allowing amendment of the plaint in the suit filed by respondent No. 1 therein. By the impugned order, the trial Court allowed prayer for amendment of the plaint after taking note of all the objections raised on behalf of the defendants in the case and it was observed that the proposed amendments are necessary for the just decision of the case and no mala fide can be imputed to the plaintiff and the only intention seems to be to clarify the stand of the plaintiff. It was also noted that all possible objections have already .been taken "by the defendants in the written statement filed to the original plaint and the "plaintiff was prepared to pay Court fee after proper valuation of the suit property, and that on the facts and circumstances of the case no prejudice would be caused to the defendants in allowing the amendment.

(2) The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the plaintiff has been allowed to withdraw admission and improve the stand and that this was not permissible and further earlier also, the plaintiff had amended .:he plaint. Accordingly he could have taken all pleas in the first application , , that second, application, for amendment of the plaint ought not to have causeen entertained.

(3) I have gone through the trial Court records and also heard Counsel tak or the parties. I find that the first amendment was only for impleading another fibarty to the suit, who is son of the original defendant, by means of application Winder Order I Rule 10 of Code Civil Procedure and there was no amendment of facts and/or on merits. I find that all essential and basic facts are mentioned in the original plaint, and what is sought by the impugned amendment is jucidation of those facts.

(4) It goes without saying that It is for the plaintiff to prove all those acts which are alleged in the original plaint, as also sought to be added in the 'mended plaint. The trial of the case is at the initial stage and, I am told, issues have not yet been framed. It is also not a case where it can be said on of the record that the relief of possession as now added, would be barred any time. That has to be determined on the facts and circumstances of the case, spleaded. The plea of time bar has been taken by the defendant even to the original plaint. 5. I find no error in the approach of the trial Court nor any infirmity the impugned order while allowing the amendment as the defendants have been all possible objections, open to them, and can take further objections, thatever may be available to them, while filing written statement to the amended plaint. The plaintiff has put her own valuation on the suit property and paid Court fees accordingly.

(5) Mr. Ahuja states that the defendant has objection as to the correct valuation of the suit property. That objection can also be taken up while filing the written statement to the amended plaint.

(6) I, therefore, do not find any case made out, in so far as the impugned order is concerned, for interference in the revision petition. The amended plaint is already on record and. as stated, the court fee as per plaintiff's valuation, stands already paid. The defendants shall file written statement to the amended plaint and the Court shall proceed, to frame issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties, after allowing opportunity to the plaintiff to file replication, if required.

(7) Trial Court records be sent back with copy of this order, and the case file be put up before the Court concerned on 26th August, 1991 when the parties or their Counsel shall appear before the trial Court, for further orders In the case.

(8) With these directions, the revision petition stands disposed of.