Satish Jain vs Mukesh Jain

B.S. Verma, J.

(Stay Application No. 1215 of 2011)

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 23-1-2010 and 12-1-2011 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dehradun and 1st Additional District Judge/5th F.T.C. Dehradun respectively.

By the order dated 23-1-2010, the learned trial court has allowed the application for amendment of plaint was allowed and by order dated 12-1-2011, the revision filed against the said order was dismissed by the revisional court.

It appears that the Plaintiff-Respondent moved an application for amendment of plaint, paper No. 112-K1 in O.S. No. 578 of 1996. It also appears that the application for amendment was moved prior to filing of written statement by the Petitioner-Defendant. The Petitioner has annexed copy of the application as Annexure-4 to the petition. The Petitioner filed objection against the amendment application.

Learned trial court after hearing both the parties has held that written statement had not been filed in the suit and the suit was lying at the very initial stage and the amendment sought to made does not change the nature of the suit. Accordingly the amendment application was allowed by order dated 23-1-2010.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed revision before the 1st Additional District Judge/5th F.T.C. Dehradun, who did not find favour with the revisionist and dismissed the revision by a detailed order dated 12-1-2011.

Having heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and having gone through the material placed before this Court, I am of the view that the amendment was sought by the Respondent prior to filing of written statement by the Defendant and the proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. By allowing the proposed amendment, no prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner. Both the courts below have considered every aspect of the matter and have rightly passed the impugned orders. I do not find any perversity or manifest error of law in the impugned orders passed by the two courts below. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.

All pending applications stand disposed of.