Manzoor Ahmad Bhat vs State & Ors.

The petitioner, Manzoor Ahmad Bhatplaintiff has filed this Civil Revision, questioning SubJudge Pulwama's order of April 11, 2009 rejecting

petitioner's application seeking amendment of the Plaint.

Appearing for the petitioner, his learned counsel submits that the amendment proposed by the petitioner, in his plaint was essential for just

decision of the case as the plaintiff wanted to specifically plead his right of Easement of necessity besides the right of Ingress and Egress to his

property which, according to him, had been erroneously declined by the trial Court.

Per contra Mr. Allaudin Ganai appearing for the defendants and Mr. S.R.Khawar appearing for applicants, in application IA(C) No.332/2009,

submitted that the amendment sought for by the petitioner was unnecessary in view of his detailed pleadings, which had been rightly rejected by the

trial Court and no interference with the trial Court's order may thus be warranted in revision.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the petitioner's plaint, copy whereof was made available during

the course of hearing, and the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge.

Petitioner's application has been rejected by the trial Court on the ground that he had failed to spell out in his application as to which portion of

his pleadings, he wanted to be altered, modified or supplemented and in this view of the matter his application did not warrant acceptance, for,

allowance of the amendment would otherwise, prejudice the defendants.

Perusal of the petitioner's application, forming part of the records, indicates that except giving history about his ownership over the suit property,

the petitioner has nowhere indicated as to how the proposed history regarding his ownership, was relevant for deciding the rights of the parties in

the suit.

Petitioner's counsel's submission that the facts pleaded in petitioner's application were necessary for pleading right of Easement and right to

Ingress and Egress to his property, is found to be without substance, in that, no such plea has been raised in the application seeking amendment of

the plaint.

Perusal of the petitioner's plaint, even otherwise indicates that the petitioiner has pleaded in paragraph No.4 of his original Plaint, the violation of

his right of Ingress and Egress besides saying that the existing pathway was the only pathway to reach his shops.

The rights which the petitioner propqses to project by way of amendment, in the plaint, having already been so pleaded in the original plaint, the

petitioner's prayer for amendment of the plaint was unnecessary.

For all that has been said above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the

petitioner's application, when neither any prejudice is shown to have been caused to him with the rejection of his Application, nor does the order

suffer from any illegality, irregularity or error of jurisdiction.

Found without merit, this Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.