KRISHNA MOHAN SAHAI Vs. GANESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 375 of 1961, against an order dated the 11th September, 1963, by which the learned Munsif has rejected the plaintiff's prayer for amendment of his plaint. Shortly stated., the facts are as follows. A suit was instituted on the 23rd March, 1961; and, on contest, the market value of the lands in suit was determined on the 14th, May, 1963, and the market value was fixed at Rs. 855. The plaintiff amended his plaint; and He was directed to pay the deficit court-fee of Rs. 103.50 paise. After the plaintiff had taken several adjournments for payment of the deficit court-fee, on the 18th June, 19G3, he applied for some amendment of the plaint. Originally, the suit was for a declaration that the defendant first party was the plaintiff's sikmi bataidar in respect of the suit lands, measuring 3.55 acres and for a further declaration that the survey entry regarding the defendant first party as raiyat in respect of the disputed land was wrong and incorrect. On hearing the parties, the learned Munsif has, by the impugned order, rejected the plaintiff's prayer on the ground that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the suit and the defendant first party would be prejudiced by the amendment. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on looking into the plaint and the proposed amendment, it does not appear that the nature of the suit will be changed in such a way that the amendment should be refused in this case. In substance, it appears that the plaintiff now wishes to proceed as if the suit were only for the first declaration, that the defendant first party was his sikmi bataidar. Whether the suit could be maintained for this relief is entirely a different matter which will be considered by the Court trying the suit. But for the purposes of the proposed amendment it does not appear that the amendment prayed for will change the nature of the suit in any way. It is difficult to hold that the defendant first party will be prejudiced by the amendment if allowed at this stage. If necessary, the defendant will be at liberty to meet the plaintiff's case in the plaint, as amended, by his pleading. I would, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Munsif and permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint as prayed for on the 18th June, 1963. The Court will now proceed to consider whether the court-fee already paid by the plaintiff will be sufficient or not, on the plaint as It will stand after the amendment. All orders subsequent to the 11th September, 1963, therefore, become infructuous and the suit will be restored to the stage at which it was on the 11th September, 1963. The application is, therefore, allowed; but as there is no appearance on behalf of the opposite party, there will be no order for costs.