R.R. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the defendant against an amendment application seeking to amend the written statement in an original suit pending in the court below. The said amendment application was rejected by the trial court and has been affirmed by the revisional court, the opposite party No. 1. Aggrieved, the defendant has filed the present writ petition in this Court. Counter -affidavit and rejoinder -affidavit have been exchanged in this case.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He has submitted that the court below is not right in law in recording a finding that the amendment will change the nature of the suit and that the courts ought to have taken a liberal view in the matter and allowed the amendment application in view of the settled principles of law in this regard. In support of his submission learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon certain cases decided both by the Supreme Court and of this Court. In particular he has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Prakash Bhasin v. Smt. Raj Rani Bhasin : AIR 1981 SC 485, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon paragraphs 6 to 8 of the judgment of this case. In paragraph 6 it has been stated that the liberal principles which guide the exercise of discretion in allowing amendments have been laid down in numerous decisions by the Supreme Court and multiplicity of proceedings be avoided is one criterion. It has been further stated that the amendments which do not totally alter the character of the action are readily granted and that court must be guided by the rule of justice. The other case cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is the case of C.M. Vereekutty v. C.M. Mathukutty : AIR 1981 SC 1533. In that case the question was as to whether the plaint should be amended on the ground that some properties had not been correctly and fully described in original suit and due to ignorance some properties had been omitted to be mentioned in the partition suit It was held by the Supreme Court in that case that the High Court was right in allowing amendment and remanding suit to trial court for fresh disposal. The next case cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is the case of Satish Chandra Saxena v. Krishna Prasad Saxena, 1988 ACJ 659. In that case it was held that against an order rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement a revision was maintainable. In the present case the impugned order passed by the court in revision does not say that the revision was not maintainable. Hence this case is of no help to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Lastly, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Munni Lal Sahu v. The District Judge Jhansi, 1991 ACJ 1259. In this case, no doubt, in paragraph 5 of the judgment certain guide lines to allow the amendment application have been given but so far as this case is concerned ultimately on the facts of the case the Court has upheld the rejection of the amendment in the written statement. Coming back to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner 1 find that in the present case both the courts below have recorded finding to the effect that proposed amendment of pleading in paragraph 5 of the written statement to the effect that Sikmi Plot No. 316 instead of Sikmi Plot No. 306 in the aforesaid paragraph of the written statement may be allowed to be amended. The trial court had held it not to be a typing mistake as alleged on the ground that the said allegation was not correct in view of the earlier application moved for correction. Both the courts below have also recorded finding to the effect that the said amendment will change the nature of the defence. The court in revision has also held that the amendment was not material for decision of the case also. It has also held that the trial court has exercised its discretion in not allowing the amendment and there was no good reason for the court in revision to interfere with the same.
(3.) Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner I do not agree with him that the proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit and that the amendment is only trivial and on the principle of "liberal view" the amendment ought to have been allowed. It has also been held by the court in revision that allowing or rejecting the amendment will not prejudice the case of the defence. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings recorded by both the courts below, in may opinion, it is not a case in which the principle of adopting a liberal view to allow the amendment in the present case is applicable. To my mind, the Petitioner has not succeeded in making out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the impugned orders passed by the courts below.;