AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.S. Singhvi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order passed by the learned Sub-Judge II Class, Ferozepur.
The amendment sought for by the plaintiff-petitioner in his plaint is nothing more than incorporation of a fact that he had filed a departmental appeal against the order of dismissal and the same was pending before the Appellate Authority on the date of filing of the suit.
The learned trial Court has dismissed the application for amendment only on the ground of delay and alleged negligence on the part of the plaintiff-petitioner to incorporate this fact in his plaint.
The reason assigned by the learned trial Court for not exercise of its discretion in favour of the petitioner is not legally sustainable. Clearly the learned trial court has overlooked the settled principle of law that delay in itself cannot be a ground for denying amendment in the pleadings. Without elaborating further, I refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others, . Refusal of the amendment by the trial Court will prejudice the cause of the petitioner and, therefore, it is necessary to set aside the impugned order.
Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. Order dated 10.6.1994 passed by learned Sub Judge II Class, Ferozepur, is set aside. The application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioner stands allowed. It shall be open to the defendant-respondent to file amended written statement.
Parties shall appear before the trial Court on the date already fixed there.