AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—The plaintiff filed a suit for partition, injunction and consequential reliefs. An application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment of the plaint was rejected by the trial Court. Hence, this Petition by the plaintiff.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He contends that the trial Court has erroneously held that he is entitled to argue the matter without permitting him to amend his plaint. That the trial Court committed an error that it is unnecessary to incorporate the pleadings and hence rejected the application.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents defends the impugned order and submits that no interference is called for. He contends that the defendant is aged almost 75 years and in the guise of the amendment the trial of the suit is likely to be delayed. He further contends that there are no merits in the application and the application requires to be rejected.
Heard counsels.
The reasoning recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the application is that the amendment sought for seeking relief under the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, is a legal aspect and hence the amendment of pleadings being unnecessary, the plaintiff could argue the same before the Court without the amendment.
The reasoning adopted by the trial Court is unsustainable and liable to be rejected. Without amendment of the pleadings, it is improper for the trial Court to rely purely on the arguments to determine the rights of the plaintiff. Therefore, it would be necessary to allow the said amendment.
The application for amendment is ostensibly filed due to the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, in the year 2005. Therefore, it is contended that in view of the said amendment, the said plea could not have been taken by the plaintiff earlier.
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is willing to conduct the trial on the day today basis and ensure that the trial would be concluded by the end of June, 2010. Further in view of the inconvenience caused to the other side and the delay in the trial he shall pay costs of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Out of this sum, Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid by the Registry to the respondents herein.
For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 24-2-2009 passed by the I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No. 8725/1998 is set aside. I.A. No. VI filed by the petitioner is allowed.
In view of the undertaking given by the counsels, the trial Court is directed to hear and dispose of the suit in accordance with law by the end of June, 2010 and if necessary on day today basis.