The defendant is the revision petitioner.
2. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in allowing the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment in the plaint, the present revision is filed.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The suit is filed for a mandatory injunction and for an injunction. Pending suit, the above application seeking amendment has been filed by the respondent/plaintiff. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application that the counsel who prepared the plaint appears to have under the misconception had stated that the passage referred to in Schedule B of the plaint is in S.No.213/6, whereas the correct survey number is only old Natham S.No.213/11 and new Survey No.256/2. It is also stated that the suit is in the argument stage. Further, the defendant also in his written statement has specifically stated that he has not put up any super structure in S.No.213/6. As the defendant had stated that he is not disturbing the Survey No.213/6, the correct survey had to be found out. Hence, the above application was taken out for substituting the Survey No.256/2 in the place of S.No.213/6 in the A, B and C Scheduled properties, by amending the plaint and it is further stated that if the amendment sought for is not allowed, in the event of the suit being decreed, it will become inexecutable.
5. The application was resisted by the revision petitioner/defendant by contending that only to drag on the proceedings, the above application has been filed.
6. However, the Court below has allowed the application on terms. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the defendant.
7. On a perusal of the order passed by the Court below, it is seen that the learned trial Judge after considering the fact that only after the filing of the written statement, the plaintiff has taken out such an application to amend the Survey Number in the suit B Schedule property, has allowed the same. It is further held that the defendant has clearly stated that he has not put up any construction in the said Survey Number. Therefore, it is necessary to find out whether this B Scheduled property is a pathway or a common pathway and that the same has to be decided only after the trial. Since the plaintiff is only seeking to amend the correct survey number, which has been wrongly mentioned in the original plaint and that there is no dispute with respect to the identity of the B scheduled property, the same is now sought to be amended. Further, the said amendment is necessary for the determination of the real question in controversy as even if any decree is passed based on the same, it will become inexecutable. Therefore, the Court below has allowed the amendment application and that too, by awarding costs of Rs.3,000/- to be payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, as the same has been filed, when the suit is in the argument stage.
8. In such circumstances, the revision petitioner/defendant could not have any grievance as though the scheme of the suit itself is altered or the suit prayer has been totally substituted. Further the amendment would also avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.