- (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the trial court upon an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for seeking amendment in the plaint.
(2.) THE suit was filed for permanent injunction being Suit No. 281 of 2004 in respect of plot no. 225 as has been indicated in the plaint map. THE petitioners by means of the aforesaid amendment want to include the portion of the plot indicated in the plaint map as Ka, Kha and Pa Pha. According to the petitioners, there was a mistake in mentioning the length and width in the area of the plot and, therefore, by the amendment the said mistake has been sought to be corrected. It is admitted that the written statement etc. have been filed in the said suit and the evidence of both the parties have also been closed and the matter is at the stage of final decision. At this belated stage the prayer made in the said application has been refused by the trial court vide its order dated 22.2.2011 against which revision was filed and the same has also been rejected vide order dated 22.9.2011 in Revision No. 4 of 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the area of the plot was wrongly mentioned and, therefore, only correction has been sought to show the correct area and the trial court has merely rejected the same on the ground that such an amendment is being sought at this belated stage as the petitioners had full knowledge at the time of the filing of the plaint itself. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of M/s Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Moji Ram, reported in AIR 1978 SC 484 and B.K.N.Pillai Vs. P.Pillai and another, reported in JT 1999 (10)SC 61. Relying on the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amendment can be allowed even at the belated stage if it affects the proper decision in the suit.
(3.) I am unable to accept the aforesaid contentions. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners had complete knowledge of the property in question and when the evidence etc. have been closed and the matter was at the stage of final decision, the motive is only to delay the proceedings, which, in my view, is not to be acceptable and this petition for this purpose at this belated stage, is mis-conceived. The fact remains that in case the petitioners have any grievance and the suit is decided against them, they can raise all those objections at the appellate stage. In this view of the matter, I do not wish to interfere in the order of the court below. However, it is made clear that in case the suit is decided against the petitioners and they prefer an appeal, the appellate court will not be prejudiced by any observation made in this order. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of;