Bharati Sapru, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition against an order dated 31.1.2000 passed on the petitioner's application under Order VI, Rule 17 by which the petitioner sought to amend his plaint. The facts are that the petitioner had filed an Original Suit No. 564 of 1995 with a prayer for a decree for cancellation of sale deed registered on 26th May, 1995. There was also a prayer for perpetual prohibitory injunction in the suit restraining the defendant, their agents and servants, from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over their respective agricultural plots.
(2.) THE suit was in the progress at the stage of examination of evidence. At this stage, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Order 1, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. making a request therein to implead the names of certain persons. The other prayer was to change the word pumping set to "Dunlup Gadi". The Trial Court, vide its order dated 30.7.1999 rejected the application for amendment on the ground that the petitioner was seeking to fill -up the lacunas in his case and the person who are sought to be impleaded were not necessary parties. Against the order of the Trial Court dated 30.7.1999, the petitioner, then preferred a revision and the Revisional Court also came to the conclusion that the amendment of the petitioner was not liable to be allowed. It is this revisional order dated 31.1.2000 which is being judicial reviewed in the present writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has argued that it has been the constant view of the Hon'ble Apex Court that an amendment can be sought and is permissible even at the appellate stage and has argued that because the Court below has not considered the application of the petitioner properly, it has committed a manifest error of law by rejecting the said amendment application. He has also argued that the Court should have taken a casual view in passing the order of amendment and if the amendment were allowed, it would cause no prejudice to the defendants. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaja and another v. Yellappa and others : 2004 (57) ALR 277 (SC) : 2004 (21) AIC 16 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given its dictum on the scope and manner in which the discretion is to be exercised while dealing with an application under Order VI, Rule 17 and has held that the amendment subserving the ultimate cause of justice and avoiding further litigation should be allowed. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the discretion of the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under these provisions depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and has to be exercised in a judicious manner. In this case the petitioner had already laid down necessary factual basis in the plaint to the title which was being denied by the respondent in his written statement and, therefore, nothing new was sought to be adduced in that case and it was in those circumstances, that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that such an amendment ought to have been allowed.;