GUDU BHOTRA Vs. TAPASWINI RONDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabarangpur, dated 29 -1 -1996 passed in Title Appeal No. 6 of 1994. By the impugned order, the plaintiff -appellants' application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6, Rule17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.

(2.) BY the proposed amendment the plaintiffs wanted to amend the pleadings at the appellate stage to the effect that defendants 2 and 3 are not the sons of Gomudu Bhotra, but they are the sons of Somundh Bhotra, who is the son of Bansai Bhotra. The petition was dismissed on the ground that by the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs wanted to introduce a new story regarding the parentage of defendants 2 and 3. The learned lower appellate Court also held that the proposed amendment would cause serious prejudice to the other side.

(3.) ANOTHER decision of this Court in Sakhi Dei v. Banamali Sahu : 81 (1996) CLT 119, was placed before me. In that case, the amendment was sought for after passing of the preliminary decree in respect of schedule of properties which was allowed. The Court held that the amendment was necessary for the purpose of determining the real question raised by parties or pending in such proceeding. According to the learned Judge, the object is to minimise litigation and avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that rules of procedure are intended to be hand -maid of administration of justice. It was also held that a party cannot be refused justice merely because of some mistake, negligence or inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure and that prayer to amend pleadings has to be liberally accepted unless the Court is satisfied that the party applying was acting mala fide or that mistake has caused injury to his opponent, which cannot be compensated by an order of cost. The learned Judge relied on the decision of the apex Court in Jai Jai Ram ManoharLal v. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon : AIR 1969 SC 1267. I am in respectful agreement with the above ratio which squarely covers the case in hand.