AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldip Singh, Judge
The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners had filed an application u/s 151 CPC for allowing the petitioners to amend the plaint as required under Order 1 Rule 10(4) CPC. The learned District Judge has dismissed the application on 19.10.2012 which order has been assailed before this Court. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petition is likely to fail on technical ground as the petitioners have not pleaded necessary averments in the application for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel has prayed for withdrawal of the application for amendment of the plaint with liberty to file fresh application for amendment of the plaint. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer. A copy of application dated 07.01.2012 for amendment of plaint has been placed on record. The perusal of the application indicates that necessary averments with respect to amendment of the plaint have not been pleaded in the application. In fact, this application cannot be considered as an application for amendment of the plaint. In these circumstances, the petitioners are allowed to withdraw the application for amendment of the plaint with liberty to file fresh application. In view of above, the order dated 19.10.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Bilaspur, in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 411 of 2012 is set aside. It is made clear that in the application for amendment of plaint, if filed by the petitioners, the respondents shall be at liberty to oppose the said application on all pleas available to them in law. The petition is disposed of on above terms. The pending application is also disposed of.