- (1.) This revision-petition has been directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 20.9.1989 declining the amendment of the plaint. By way of seeking amendment in the plaint as many as four amendments have been sought which are reproduced below :- "Suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession to the extent of 3/4th share on the basis of the title having inherited the same from Hazara Singh, their ancestor, while they are in possession of the remaining 1/4th share on the basis of adverse possession in the land mentioned in para-A of the title of the plaint. That in para Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaint the name of Shri Phuman Singh is wrongly written. The correct name is Thaman Singh and as such the plaintiffs want to substitute the name of Thaman Singh in place of Shri Phuman Singh in para Nos. 1 and 2. That in para No. 2 of the plaint it is wrongly written that Shri Jawahar Singh died in 1990-2000 BK. Actually he died in 1964-65 AD and as such the plaintiffs want to substitute 1964-65 AD in place of 1999-2000 BK. by way of amendment. That the plaintiffs also want to amend the first part of the prayer clause so as to read it as under :- "It is, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs may be decreed and a decree for declaration (i) to the effect that the plaintiffs are owners in possession to the extent of 3/4th share on the basis of title having inherited the same from Hazara Singh their ancestor, while they are in possession of the remaining 1/4th share on the basis of adverse possession of the agricultural land fully described in para A of the heading. Out of the aforesaid amendments, the trial Court, in the impugned order has already allowed the substitution of the name of Thaman Singh, instead of Phuman Singh. As regards other amendments are concerned, it would be seen that if head note of the plaint is allowed to be amended the necessary amendment has got to be allowed in the prayer clause. By way in dispute to the extent of 3/4th on account of inheritance from Hazara Singh whereas with respect of 1/4th on account of adverse possession. Similarly, as has been observed above, the prayer clause has to be amended. The other amendment which is sought is regarding the date of death of Jawahar Singh.
(2.) After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that it cannot be said that the pleas sought to be raised by way of amendment are in any way of inconsistent with the original pleadings. Date of death would be proved by leading evidence and if Jawahar Singh has actually died in 1964-65 A.D. as is sought to be contended now by way of amendment, it would be unjust to decline the amendment. Law of amendment, as has been held in various judicial pronouncements, is quite liberal. Moreover, when the plaintiffs wanted to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one, it was observed by the Court that the remedy lay in seeking amendment. When amendment has been sought the same has been declined. May be the defendants did not agree to the amendment at the time when the prayer for withdrawal of the suit was declined, the Court cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. Once the Court had observed that the remedy lay in seeking amendment, the amendment could be declined only by advancing cogent reasoning which is missing. Since the amendments are necessary for determining the questions in controversy finally, the same should have been allowed.
(3.) In the light of the observations made above, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the trial Court is set aside and the amendment, of the plaint is allowed in toto. The amendment, would haveverm be subject to the payment of Rs. 750/- as costs. The trial of the suit be expedited and any case the suit should be decided within one year. The parties in revision are left to bear their own costs.;