- (1.) The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration relating to an immovable property instituted in the year 1988 complain of a further application for amendment of the plaint being declined by the order impugned dated February 28, 2014.
(2.) The plaintiffs say that since it is evident from the order impugned that the trial had not commenced and, in any event, since the proviso to amended Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply to this suit, the trial Court should have permitted the amendment to be incorporated. The petitioners suggest that the proposed amendment would neither have changed the nature or character of the suit nor retracted any admission contained in the plaint; that all that the plaintiffs intended to do was to challenge some entries in the records of rights which were relevant in the context of the title claimed in the suit; and, that such matters were necessary to be considered in deciding the real controversies between the parties.
(3.) The contesting defendants have produced the certified copy of the entire order-sheet from which it appears that there were directions issued more than a decade back for the expeditious disposal of the suit and that previous applications for amending the plaint have been allowed on similar grounds as in the present case.;