Heard Shri Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3.
The plaintiff-petitioner is utterly misusing the order dated 10.5.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31870 of 2006 copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Through the said order it was directed that the suit (Original Suit No.104 of 2004) must be decided within eight months and for a period of eight months or until decision of the suit whichever was earlier status quo order shall remain operative. The petitioner is delaying the proceeding by adopting the most patent device of filing amendment application. The amendment application was rejected by the Trial court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli through order dated 12.10.2011 against which Civil Revision No.37 of 2011 was filed which has been rejected on 17.4.2012 by District Judge, Chandauli. These orders have been challenged through this writ petition. There was absolutely no explanation as to why plea which was sought to be added through amendment could not be taken in the original plaint. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this restriction has been added in 2002 and it applies only to the amendments sought after the trial of the suit has commenced. The argument is misconceived. Even prior to the amendment of 2002 in the C.P.C. it was essential to show that the amendment which is being sought could not be taken in the original plaint. The only difference is that firstly what was earlier implied has now been expressly provided and secondly the rigour has become more severe after 2002 amendment in the C.P.C. The new provision cannot be interpreted to mean that before the trial commences any amendment in the pleading may be permitted just for asking.
I do not find least error in the impugned order.
Writ petition is dismissed. It is further clarified that status quo order granted by this court has already exhausted on 10.2.2012.
Order Date :- 22.5.2012 RS