Court No. - 42
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9834 of 2019
Petitioner :- Rampati
Respondent :- Chandrabali And 15 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Awtar
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ballia. On application for amendment moved by the appellant in the Appeal No.41 of 2016 (Bhikhari Vs. Chandrabali). It has been submitted that in the application moved by the petitioner after filing the appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2016, the petitioner had clearly mentioned that he had told all the facts to his lawyer who for reason best known to him had not incorporated the same in the plaint filed before the trial court in Regular Suit No.521 of 1991. The said Suit was rejected by the learned trial court on 13.05.2016, hence cause arose to file the Appeal.
2. The learned appellate court has rejected the application only on the ground that the petitioner failed to show that despite sufficient and due diligence, he could not have known the facts which he now sought to bring by way of amendment to be incorporated in the Appeal.
3. This Court has perused the order impugned dated 07.11.2019.
4. This Court does not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned. Although it has been the settled position in law that amendments should be allowed at any stage if they do not tend to change the nature of the Suit and are helpful for a just decision of the real controversy between the parties, after the Suit was dismissed by the learned trial court, amendment sought to be made in the plaint by the plaintiff has to be considered on different parameter altogether. The defendant had opposed the said amendment proposed to be made in the plaint by the plaintiff as it would change the very nature of the Suit. The learned appellate court has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Ram Roop and another vs. Deputy Director Consolidation, Varanasi and others (2002) 93 RD 123, wherein this Court had observed that only such amendments should be allowed in appeal which at the time of filing of the original plaint could not have been in the knowledge of the plaintiff despite due diligence being exercised by him. The amendment sought by the petitioner was with respect to land marked as no.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the plaint itself and the plaintiff had sought to change the number of the property in dispute to plot no.23 ad-measuring 6 disimals.
5. This Court, therefore, does not find any good ground to show interference, accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019
C. MANI