AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karsog in CMA No. 128-VI/2009 rejecting an application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC seeking certain amendments in the plaint.
One of the amendments, as prayed for, was to the effect that the Petitioner herein had pleaded that he had demolished an old structure and reconstructed a new building. This was sought to be replaced by the pleading that infact the building had not been demolished rather huge amount of money has been spent in reconstructing the building. The second amendment sought for was that all the legal heirs of deceased Fithu had not been brought on record which was necessary and essential for determination of real controversy. The application was rejected.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The order of the learned trial Court rejecting the incorporation of the plea that the building had not been demolished cannot be faulted with. On the second point, if all the heirs of deceased Fithu were to be impleaded, there was no harm in impleading them subject to all just exceptions.
In this view of the matter, this petition is partly allowed. The order of the learned trial Court, where it rejects the amendment so far as the demolition of the building etc. is concerned, is upheld. However, the Petitioner is allowed to incorporate a plea that all the legal heirs of deceased Fithu be allowed to be brought on the record of the case. This will be subject to all just exceptions. Needless to say that once this part of the amendment is allowed, the Defendants shall be given adequate opportunity to file their written statement on this issue. Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.