Parasram Singh through Lrs. Smt. Ramkali and Others vs Rakesh Kumar and Others

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India assails the interlocutory order dated 15.9. 2011 passed in Civil Suit No. 2A/2010 by 4th Civil Judge Class II Morena whereby an application preferred by plaintiff/respondent herein filed under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment has been allowed thereby impelling the defendant/petitioner herein to file this petition. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier by an interlocutory order dated 26.4. 2011 the same prayer was rejected by the trial Court on the ground of plaintiff having failed to produce cogent document in support of the amendment and since in the subsequent application which has been allowed by the impugned order no new evidence was brought forth by the plaintiff, it is urged that subsequent application ought not to have been allowed.

The perusal of the earlier and subsequent application under Order 6 Rule 17 which are dated 2.2. 2011 and 21.7. 2011 respectively indicates that in the earlier application the details of the new tenants were missing which have been provided by mentioning their fathers name and address.

Though the learned counsel has argued at length that the earlier application for amendment once rejected ought not to have been allowed subsequently unless the earlier order was set a side, but this Court on a comparative perusal of the earlier and subsequent application finds that details about the father''s name and address have been given in respect of new tenants whom the plaintiff intends to implead as additional party besides proposing to implead certain consequent pleadings in the plaint but the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any prejudice is caused to the plaintiff, since it does not appear that trial has commenced as the plaintiff''s evidence is yet to begin and therefore, rigors of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 have not become operational.

In view of the above, it does not appear that any jurisdictional error has been committed by the trial Court.

Accordingly, no interference is called for in the order impugned herein under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this petition deserves to be and is therefore rejected sans cost.