Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the applications filed by the petitioner under Order VII, Rule 14 CPC and under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC have been rejected.
(2.) A suit for declaration regarding ownership, permanent and mandatory injunction was filed by the petitioner in the year 2005. A written statement was filed by the defendants in the year 2005 itself; whereafter the proceedings remained pending; after the issues were framed and affidavits in evidence were filed by the plaintiff -petitioner, the present application was filed under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC, inter alia, seeking amendment in the plaint to replace the names of owners of the land in question, who were predecessor in title of the petitioner; it was claimed that in the plaint the plaintiff by mistake indicated that Ram Chandra and Gangadhar were owners of the land in question and they had authorized Suraj Bhan to sale residential plots, in fact the land stood in the names of Krishna Kumar and Satyavan, who had authorized Suraj Bhan to transfer residential plots and, therefore, instead of Ram Chandra and Gangadhar, names of Krishna Kumar and Satyavan be substituted; it was claimed that on account of such amendment the cause of action is not changed; the documents relating to the proposed amendment have already been filed on the record, the trial has not commenced and it was claimed that the mistake was detected on the last date by counsel for plaintiff and immediately amendment application for correction of mistake is being filed; the plaintiff was not aware of the mistake earlier as she is a lady and meets the counsel seldom; the earlier counsel has left practice at Sri Ganganagar and plaintiff has appointed a new counsel, who detected the mistake on the last date and, therefore, the proposed amendment is being made with due diligence, which could not have been done earlier and prayed that the application be allowed.
(3.) THOUGH no reply was filed by the defendants, the application was resisted on the ground of delay and the fact that defence of the defendants would be affected.;