AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sat Pal, J.
This civil revision petition has been directed against the order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Samrala. By this order, the learned trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitionerplaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is not legally sustainable as the petitionerplaintiff had sought amendment of the plaint only to the extent he wants to add para 5A which reads as under;
"5A. That the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the present suit in July, 1993, on coming to know from the consultation of the revenue record that the suit property has not been incorporated in the revenue record in favour of the plaintiff. Immediately coming to know about the mistake crept in the revenue record the plaintiff has filed a suit. Thus, the cause of action arose to the plaintiff in July, 1993."
From the contents of para 5A, it is clear that this para is being added on the basis of facts which have already been mentioned in the plaint and only details with regard to cause of action have been given in this para.
In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1000/ and the impugned order dated 22.10.1997 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. Resultantly, the application filed the petitionerplaintiff under Section 6 Rule 17, CPC stands allowed. The view I have taken, finds full support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gajanan Jai Kishan Joshi v. Prabhakar Mohan Lal Kalwar, 1990(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 229 : 1990(1) R.R.R. 222 : 1990(2) All India Land Laws Reporter 205.