Sham Sunder Lal vs Daulat Ram and Others

N.K. Kapoor. J.—This is a revision petition against the order of Sub Judge dated 4.2 1992 whereby the permission to amend the plaint was granted.

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant for possession of half share of the property as detailed in the heading of the plaint by partition on the allegation that he is the son of Pandit Harivansh Lal. It was further averred that Rikhi Ram died on 4.1.1977 leaving behind the defendant as a legal heir. Rulia Ram bad two sons-Harivansh Lal and Rikhi Ram. Harivansh Lal died long ago and Shrimati Santo widow of Pandit Rulia Ram, grand mother of the plaintiff and defendants executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff on 22.12.1957. As per Will, she be-queathed that the plaintiff will become the owner, to the extent of 1/2 share in the immovable property as well as in the currency notes and other gold and silver rupees.

Defendants put in appearance, filed written statement, controverted all the main allegations of the plaintiff and further pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the present form. It was further aver-red that the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit and other legal objections were taken.

During the course of proceedings, the plaintiff filed an application firstly for withdrawal of the suit with permission to file a fresh suit and on the dismissal of the same filed another application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on the ground that inadvertantly the plaintiff forgot to claim their share in respect of property situated in Gali Sodhi Inder Singh. Ferozepur and in respect of 9 shops situate in Mochi Bazar, Ferozepur.

This application for amendment was contested by the respondents on the ground that the amendment sought is quite belated and amendment, if allowed, would change the nature of the suit and even otherwise; the same is barred by limitation.

The trial court, after hearing the parties, found no merit in any of the objections raised by the respondents and so granted the application which order is being challenged in this revision petition.

The law of amendment is fairly liberal. The proposed amendment is neither beyond limitation nor the same gives a fresh cause of action. In fact, the proposed amendment is necessitated because by an oversight plaintiff forgot to make mention of the properties left by the erstwhile owner. The judgment of the apex Court reported as C. M. Vereekutty v. C. M. Mathukutty A. I. R 1987 S. C. 1533. clearly applies on the facts of the present case. In the instant case the plaintiff claimed that some properties had not been fully and correctly- described in the original plaint schedule and that due to ignorance some properties bad been admitted. High Court allowed the application for amendment of the plaint and the appex court held that there was no justification for interference with the decision of the High Court. In another judgment of the apex court in Haridas Aildas Thadani and Others Vs. Godrej Rustom Kermani, . the court observed as under :

"The Court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer of amendment of pleading unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side, A revisional court ought not to lightly interfere with a discretion exercised in allowing amendment in absence of cogent reasons or compelling circumstances."

In view of the above mentioned judicial pronouncements of the apex court, the revision-petition is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed, The parties to bear their own costs.