AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shivaji Pandey, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the respondents. In this case the petitioner is challenging the order dated 8.8.2011 passed by the Munsif-II, Rothas at Sasaram in title Suit No. 6 of 2004 by which petition filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint has been rejected partly.
According to the petitioner the date of gift that has been given is 12.10.1972 by Sharfuddin Ansari. The. defendant-respondent appeared and has challenged that date of gift as Sharfuddin Ansari died on 8.6.1972 and thereafter the petitioner has filed amendment petition stating that it is a typographical error and as such 12.10.1972 is deleted and in its place 12.7.1968 is added.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is at the stage of framing of issue and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the amendment petition is allowed. In contra, Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the proposed amendment is completely malicious and if it is allowed to be deleted and added here, it will cause great prejudice to the defendant. He has relied on the judgment in the case of J. Samuel and Others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and Others, .
On the principle of amendment when other party on account of amendment is deprived of his valuable right or prejudice is caused which cannot be compensated in terms of money, in that circumstances the prayer for amendment cannot be allowed. this Court agrees with view of the defendant-respondent and the court below has rightly refused to allow amendment of the plaint. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed.