AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, Acg. C.J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated June 10, 1988, whereby the application for amendent of the plaint was dismissed. Originally, the plaintiff fifed the suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from re-marrying with any other girl during the life time of the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 1 married with someone else. The plaintiff now wanted to amend her suit for declaration instead of injunction which the trial Court declined on the ground that the marriage of the defendant gives a fresh cause of action for which she could file a separate suit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client will not produce any other evidence, in case the amendment sought is allowed. According to the learned counsel, it will avoid multiplicity of proceedings and recording the same evidence again in case the fresh suit is filed.
After hearing the learned counsel, I find that in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this Court that no further evidence is allowed, it will be in the interest of justice that the necessary amendment should he allowed on payment of Rs. 100/- as costs, It will not only save the multiplicity of the proceedings, but also save the public time in recording the same evidence again in the fresh suit.
Consequently, the petition succeeds; impugned order is set aside and the application for amendment is allowed on payment of Rs. 100/-as costs.
The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 13, 1990.