9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing debris, stones, boulders, building material etc. on any part and portion of the suit land. Evidence was led by the parties and the case was listed for arguments. At this stage the plaintiffs filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 40(2) of the Specific Relief Act. By way of this application the plaint was sought to be amended and the petitioner in addition to the reliefs already claimed also sought the relief of damages to the extent of ₹ 63,325/-. Consequent amendments were sought to be made in the main plaint as well as in the relief clause. 2. This application was opposed by the defendants. The learned trial Court vide order dated 7th March, 2005 rejected the application basically on two grounds. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce in this behalf may be made to V.R. Nathan v. Mac Laboratories (P.) Ltd. AIR 1975 Mad 189, wherein the Madras High Court held as follows: The proviso is imperative and the Court has no option but to grant the amendment of the plaint. The fact that the application is belated is immaterial. The only discretion left to the Court is as regards the terms on which the plaintiff may be permitted to amend. 6. The Delhi High Court in Jagdish and Ors. v. Har Samp, took a similar view and held: Provided that where no such damages have been claimed in the plaint, the Court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including such claim. 7. The language of Section 40 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VI Rule 17 CPC as amended w.e.f. 2002 will not apply to pleadings filed before that date. In the present case the suit was filed in the year 1995 and, therefore, unamended Order VI Rule 17 CPC will apply. This, however, has no material bearing on the decision of the present revision petition in view of the view taken above. 9. Keeping in view the above discussion the order of the learned trial Court rejecting the application for amendment is set aside. The plaintiffs are permitted to amend the suit, as prayed for. However, keeping in view the fact that this application has been moved almost 8 years after the suit was filed, this amendment is allowed subject to payment of costs of ₹ 3,000/-. The costs to be paid to the State of Him ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
