R.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.02.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nagar, District Bharatpur whereby the learned Magistrate had rejected an application filed by the petitioners under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amending the plaint, the petitioners have approached this court.
(2.) Mr. L.L. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that in the plaint the petitioners had merely mentioned the fact that in the area of land marked as "A, B, C, D", the respondent-defendants have dug a foundation and are threatening to raise construction. Subsequently, the petitioners moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC whereby they sought amendment in the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the walls on the said plot were being raised by the respondents. However, the learned Magistrate has erroneously declined the amendment on the ground that the fact with regard to existence of the plot in dispute is already mentioned in the plaint. Therefore, no further amendment is permissible.
(3.) Secondly, despite having observed this fact that existence of plot, and the foundation has already been mentioned in the plaint and that subsequent development with regard to the plot is deemed to be mentioned in the plaint, yet when the petitioner filed his affidavit and mentioned the subsequent development in Para-4 of his affidavit, by order dated 25.03.2008 the same learned Magistrate has disallowed Para-4 of the affidavit by which the subsequent development of the case was being brought through affidavit. Para-4 has been disallowed, inter alia, on the ground that it is contrary to the plaint.;