R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) West, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the petitioner's application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amending the plaint.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that due to bona fide mistake, the amendment could not be made in the original plaint. Therefore, the learned Magistrate should have permitted the amendments. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has pleaded that the petitioner had ample opportunities to bring about the facts to the notice of the court as he had already filed a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the respondent -defendant. Moreover, the petitioner had also filed a reply to the counterclaim filed by the respondent -defendant. Therefore, in case he neglects in defending his position, the amendment cannot be permitted after an inordinate delay.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.;