- (1.) PETITIONER has filed a suit against the non-petitioners and the same is pending before learned Additional Munsiff (West), Jaipur City, Jaipur. In the suit the plaintiff-petitioner has made a prayer for grant of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of House No. 3/185 situated at Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. In the plaint the petitioner has stated that the said house was purchased by him in the name of his mother. He had deposited the initial installment and has made substantial payment of the price of the house to the Rajasthan Housing Board. Even then he has prayed to treat the house as joint property of the members of his family and accordingly he was entitled to l/6th share in the property. In her written statement, non-petitioner No. 1 has asserted that the disputed house belongs to' her exclusively and that plaintiff-petitioner has no right in the said house. Similar written statements have been filed by the other defendants.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the suit, plaintiff petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for leave to amend the plaint by claiming that House No. 3/185 should be declared as his property and his other members for the family have no right over the property. However, defendant petitioners were trying to dispose of the property so that he may be deprived of the property. Defendant contested the amendment by claiming the amendment sought of by the plaintiff if allowed will change the nature of the case. They asserted that the plaintiff wanted to wriggle out of the admission made by him in the original plaint to the effect that the property was a joint property. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court has rejected the application for amending the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff wanted to change the very foundation of the suit and that such an amendment cannot be allowed. The trial Court further held that the amendment sought for was not necessary for deciding the controversy involved in the suit. Shri S. K. Keshote, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was only seeking to raise an alternate plea to prove his claim over the property in dispute and such alternate plea can legitimately be raised by way of amendment in the plaint. Shri Keshote argued that no prejudice is going to be caused to the non-petitioners by acceptance of the amendment application and the trial Court has ignored fundamental principles laid down by the Supreme Court in deciding the application for amendment. Shri Keshote has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Ram Mohanlal Vs. National Building Material Supply, Gurgaon (1) and Ganesh Company Vs. Moji Ram (2 ). Shri Goyal learned counsel for the non-petitioner on the other hand argued that the amendment sought for by the petitioner was intended to deprive the defendants of their valuable right which has accrued in their favour in the form of admission made by the plaintiff to the effect that the property was a joint property. Shri Goyal argued that defendant had contested even the position and when the plaintiff petitioner found that he will not be able to prove so called family settlement, he moved amendment application, which if allowed, would change the entire character of the suit. Shri Goyal placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. and another Vs. M/s. Ladha Ram & Co. (3 ). After having given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submission, I am satisfied that the impugned order of the learned Additional Munsiff Jaipur City, Jaipur does not call any interference by this Court. Facts which have come on record unmistakably show that the plaintiff petitioner has come out with the specific case about the existence of the family settlement and he is claiming l/6th share of the family property including House No. 3/185. He has prayed that he may be declared to be the holder of the l/6th share and the defendant-non-petitioners be restrained from selling or transferring the disputed house. By way of amendment the plaintiff has come forward with the case that property belongs to him exclusively and that the defendants have left their share from that house. Thus now he seeks a declaration that the house No. 3/185 belongs to him to the exclusion of all others. In substances, now the plaintiff-petitioner wants to assert that no member of the family have no any right over the house No. 3/185. Thus what he seeks to do is to change the character of the property in dispute. This plea sought to be raised by the plaintiff-petitioner is wholly inconsistent with the original plaint filed by him in the Court below as early as in 1984. It is also inconsistent with his plea regarding family settlement No. 269/83. Acceptance of the amendment sought for by the plaintiff-petitioner would drastically change the nature of the suit filed by the petitioner and in my opinion, there is no justification in allowing the amendment moved by the plaintiff-petitioner.
(3.) THE trial Court has not committed any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity. It is also not a case in which substantial failure of justice will be occasioned by refusal of the amendment. In fact injustice will be caused to the defendant-non-petitioner by acceptance of the amendment application. Judgments on which Shri Keshote has placed reliance lay down the principle that the Court must adopt a liberal approach in dealing with the amendment applications. However, these judgments do not lay down a principle that a party can be allowed to undo an admission made by it in the plaint by amending the plaint. Thus I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. Coasts made easy. . ;