AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.V. Gupta, ACJ
This revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 17, 1989, whereby the amendment of the replication was allowed on payment of Rs.50/- as costs.
In the impugned order, the trial Court found:
"I find in the application for amendment on replication has no such ground as alleged by the respondent/defendant in which the plaintiff''s stand was to shift. Besides the amendment of replication will not affect any issue which had already been framed. The rule of amendment being a liberal, therefore, I, however, in the interest of justice allow to amend the replication."
The main contention raised in the petition is that the plaintiff could move an application for amendment of the plaint and the application for amendment of the replication after a lapse of more than four years when the evidence of the plaintiff had been recorded was not justified.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the replication is a part of the pleadings in view of the judgment of this Court in Salig Ram and Another Vs. Shiv Shankar and Others, and, therefore, the amendment had been rightly allowed by the trial Court. As regards the delay the submitted that, that itself was no ground to refuse the amendment for which the respondent had been burdened with costs.
After going through the petition, I do not find any merit therein. There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order as to be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision fails and is dismissed. Since the suit is pending for the last three/four years, it is directed that the parties will lead evidence at their own responsibility though dasti summons may be given to them as contemplated under Order XVI rule 7-A, Code of Civil Procedure.