AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. None for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 though served.
The present petition challenges order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 111/2024 by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur. The said application at Exhibit 22 was filed by original plaintiff, seeking amendment of the plaint. Even though the said application is partly allowed, the portion regarding as proposed in paragraph Nos. 12(a), 12(b) as also the prayer clause in 1A, 1B is rejected.
I have gone through the impugned order. Admittedly, the proposed amendment was filed at a pre-trial stage and, therefore, as per the settled position of law, the Trial Court should have been more liberal in granting that amendment.
Furthermore, no reasons, much less justifiable one, is to be found in the said impugned order while rejecting the part of the amendment and allowing part of the same.
In that view of the matter, the order cannot withstand the scrutiny of law. The order dated 04.11.2025 is quashed and set aside.
The amendment as proposed in Exhibit 22 is allowed in its entirety.
The petition is allowed and disposed of as such.