- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept with the record.
(2.) From the affidavit of service it appears that service of notice has duly been effected upon the opposite party No. 1. But as regards the service of notice upon the opposite party No. 2 it appears that acknowledgement due card has not yet been received. Notice was sent on February 22,2007. So, it can well be presumed that notice has been duly served upon the heirs of the original defendants. This being the position service of notice upon the opposite parties is treated as sufficient. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction. In that suit the plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint. That application was rejected by the order impugned i.e. order, No. 64 dated June 8,2006 by observing since the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the plaintiff could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial, amendment should not be allowed.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff-petitioner has come up with this application. Upon hearing the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and on consideration of the materials on record I find that the plaintiff filed the suit in the year 1999. But in consideration of the disposal of the application for amendment of the plaint, the learned Trial Judge has considered the amended provision which was effective from July 1,2002 in respect of the suit filed afterwards.;