KISHORI LAL Vs. RAVI SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 22.9.2017 (impugned herein) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) , Court No.4, Mandi, in CMA No. 265/2017 in Civil Suit No. 242/16/13, whereby it rejected the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against respondent No.1 challenging therein the Will dated 19.4.1990. During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for arraying Smt. Padma Devi as proforma respondent. This application came to be allowed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 212014 and accordingly Smt. Padma Devi was ordered to be arrayed/impleaded as proforma defendant subject to costs of Rs.400/-. It was further ordered that the amended plaint be filed as per the provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 10 (4) CPC.

(3.) It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the petitioner, as a matter of right, was entitled to the amendment in the plaint even in absence of an order to this effect has been passed by the learned Court below. But here was a case where the learned Court below had itself directed the amendment of the plaint and in such circumstances, the delay in filing of the amended plaint could not have been a ground to dismiss the application.