Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sanu Ram vs Sukh Ram on 30 April, 2015
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
CMPMO No.128 of 2015.
Date of decision: 30.04.2015.
Sanu Ram .....Petitioner-Defendant.
Versus
Sukh Ram .....Respondent-Plaintiff.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner : Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral).
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 07.02.2015 passed by the learned trial Court whereby it allowed the amendment filed by the plaintiff-
respondent.
2. Admittedly, the only amendment sought by the plaintiff-
respondent is to the following effect:-
"In Para 2 and 4 (C) of the plaint, the year "1992" is to be replaced by "1997".
3. It is also not in dispute that the suit is at the initial stage where even the issues have yet not been framed. Apparently, the proposed amendment is only formal in nature whereby the plaintiff has only sought correction of the date.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:08 :::HCHP 2
4. The learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would, however, argue that the case set up by the plaintiff is totally false and .
how the same was false had been set out in detail in the written statement. Therefore, the plaintiff should not be permitted to amend the plaint or else it would cause prejudice to the defendant-petitioner.
5. It is trite that while considering the application for amendment, the Court cannot go into the veracity and correctness of the facts mentioned therein and the Court has no duty to see whether the facts under amendment are true or not but to see whether such proposed amendment was necessary for the purpose of adjudicating the real controversy between the parties. It is only after the evidence is taken when it can be ascertained as to whether the allegations sought to be incorporated by way of amendment of the plaint were true or false.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to convince me as to how prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, particularly, when the amendment is not only formal but is innocuous.
Above all, the suit is at the initial stage and it is well settled that a formal amendment without changing the cause of action or altering the structure of the plaint can be allowed at any stage of the suit.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am at a complete loss to understand as to why the petitioner at the first instance has approached this Court and as to how he would be prejudiced in case the order impugned herein is sustained. The learned trial Court has otherwise passed a detailed and well reasoned order whereby he has not only taken into consideration the relevant facts but has also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:08 :::HCHP 3 discussed the law in detail. Accordingly, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed alongwith pending application, if any.
.
8. Before parting, it may be observed that this was a fit case where the petitioner ought to have been burdened with costs. But, since notice have not been issued to the opposite side, this Court is refraining from imposing costs.
April 30, 2015. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(krt) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:08 :::HCHP