Randhir Singh & Ors vs Lrs Of Laxman Singh & Anr

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have laid challenge to order dated 13.7.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge No.1, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court), whereby an amendment application dated 31.8.2018 filed by the plaintiffs on 31.8.2018 has been allowed.

Briefly narrated the pertinent facts are that the original plaintiff Laxman Singh, propositus of the present respondents filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction in the year 2015.

In response thereto, the defendants - present petitioners had filed a written statement. However, issues are yet to be framed.

The plaintiffs filed an application on 31.8.2018 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code and sought amendment in the plaint, with an assertion that the original plaintiff Laxman Singh was an old aged person of 100 years and while filing the suit, he omitted to narrate certain relevant facts in the plaint. By way of the said amendment application, the plaintiffs sought addition of certain paragraphs in the form of 11(Ka) to 11(Jha).

The learned trial Court allowed the said amendment appellant filed by the respondents, intere alia, observing that the suit is at its initial stage; issues have not been framed; if the amendment sought for is allowed, it would not change the nature of the suit; and the amendment cannot be said to be an afterthought.

Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners calling the order dated 30.7.2019 in question, contended that the Court below has erred in allowing the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs - respondents. He argued that the plaintiffs have relied upon and sought to bring on record additional facts, which were available/known to them, even at the time of filing of the suit inasmuch as all the documents (including those on the basis whereof amendment was sought) have been filed alongwith the plaint. He further argued that the plaintiffs have not sought corresponding amendment/alteration in the plaint and the prayer; and that the suit, which was filed for 14 bighas of land, after the amendment, would be confined to 5 bighas of land. He argued that the amendment would thus change the nature of the suit.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

Upon perusal of the amendment application dated 31.8.2018, this Court concurs with the view of the trial Court that the original plaintiff, who was 100 years of age at the time of filing the plaint might have bonafidely omitted to bring in certain facts, for the reasons stated in para no.2 of the application. The amendment as allowed, would not change the nature of the suit. The impugned order dated 20.7.2019 is in conformity with the principles governing amendment applications laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy & Sons & Ors. reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84.

That apart, since the Court below has allowed the amendment application, this Court does not find it to be a fit case calling for interference in supervisory jurisdiction of this Court in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8CC 329 and Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., reported in 2003(6) SCC 675.

For the discussion foregoing the writ petition fails. The stay application also stands rejected accordingly.