Delhi District Court
Ram Kishan Arora vs Mohd. Yamin & Ors on 28 April, 2008
1 IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA:CIVIL JUDGE: KKD COURTS: DELHI SUIT NO.582/07 RAM KISHAN ARORA ....Plaintiff Vs. MOHD. YAMIN & ORS. ....Defendants
-:ORDER:-
Vide this order it is proposed to dispose off an application U/o 6 Rule 17 filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking thereby to delete para 7 of the plaint on the ground that some facts in para 7 of the plaint have been wrongly typed.
The defendant has contested the instant application by filing reply averring interalia that the instant application is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed at a highly belated stage. That the plaintiff has filed an application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. against the defendant no. 1 to which reply has already been filed. That the amendments sought are malafide and as such the same were also not material to the suit and are being pleaded only to delay the matter. Remaining averments in the instant application has been vehemently denied. It has been further averred that plaintiff has failed to show the reason as to what occasioned the pleading of wrong facts before the court.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records with their assistance. It has been observed that Order VI rule 17 CPC empowers the court to allow such amendment of pleadings as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The succinct position of law on the point is that the court while dealing with amendment applications should have a liberal approach and amendment should be disallowed only where the other 2 party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct or that the amendment would cause the other party an injury which could not be compensated in costs. It is the settled law that the court has at the time of appreciating and dealing with an application for amendment of pleadings has only to see that the amendment as sought does not unjustifiably injure the rights accrued to the other party.
Perusal of the WS of the def no. 1 to the plaint reveals that in para no. 7 of his WS the def no. 1 has denied the allegations made in para no. 7 and has stressed his case that the answering defendant had purchased the suit property from the previous owner Sh. Ram Rao Patel. Admittedly issues had not been framed in the instant suit and the instant suit is still in its preliminary stages. It also appear that no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendant no. 1 in case the instant application is allowed. It is also the settled law that the bonafides or malafides of the amendments sought are not to be adjudicated at this stage and the same can be appreciated only at the trial of the suit. Also it has been observed that the instant proposed amendments are merely clarificatory in nature and do not effect the merits of the claim. As discussed above no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendant no. 1.
In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the instant application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed subject however to costs of Rs.800/-.
Announced in Open Court (SHARAD GUPTA) on 28th April 2008. CIVIL JUDGE/KKD/28.04.08.