1. Challenge is made to the order passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.58 of 2007, whereby the Court had permitted the respondent (original plaintiff) herein to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Application was moved by the original plaintiff seeking amendment in the plaint by moving an application Exh.43 whereby it is urged that in paragraph 4 of the plaint, there was a typographical error whereby instead of 11.2.2007 wrongly 11.2.2004 has been typed. The Court, after hearing both the sides, noted that it neither changed the character of the suit nor is it likely to cause any injury or prejudice to the other side and, therefore, it allowed the same.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Gandhi has fervently argued before this Court that this amendment has been sought in the wake of defence raised by the present petitioner where the question is raised of limitation. Moreover, according to him without ascertaining whether amendment is necessary for determining the real question of dispute between the parties, the amendment has been permitted. He further urged the Court that this seriously damaged the case of the respondent and, therefore, also there is a need to interfere in supervisory jurisdiction.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Nirav Mishra appearing for the respondent submitted that though in para 3 of the plaint the words " recent development" has been used that itself is indicative that there is a typographical error in paragraph 4 of the plaint. He further urged the Court that the suit is for easementary right by prescription and, therefore, respondent original plaintiff could not have waited for 3 years to bring such a suit and, therefore also no interference is necessary.
5. On having thus heard learned advocates for the parties and on examination of material on record as also the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that there is no ground available for the Court to intervene in a supervisory jurisdiction. Trial Court has rightly comprehended all the averments as well as pleadings of the parties and allowed the amendment. As can be noted from the averments set out in the plaint, this is a suit to establish easementary right. It is unlikely that a party would wait for such a long time as rightly the Court has indicated that the dispute had arisen in the year 2004. Moreover, the pleadings will have to be examined in toto and, there also the averments in paragraph 3 are supportive of the conclusion of the trial Court. Resultantly, this petition, devoid of any merits, deserves rejection. None of the observations made hereinabove shall affect the right of other side raising the contentions permissible under the law.
(Ms.Sonia Gokani, J.) sudhir Top