B.B. Mangalmurti,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.
(2.) It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that the petitioners had entered into an agreement for sale of piece of land with defendants- respondents and thereafter a deed was executed on 27.09.2005 after payment of consideration amount. On 23.09.2008, a Title Suit bearing no.354 of 2008 was filed by original executor Prakash Chandra Sarawgi against defendants who are respondents herein. Further case is that an amendment was sought in the plaint by filing an application on 10.09.2009 and further amendment was also sought on 07.05.2010 in the plaint. The first amendment application was dismissed by the Court of Sub-Judge-I but the second amendment which was filed on 07.05.2010, was partly allowed and partly rejected. Arising out of the order, two writ applications were filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that initially an agreement for sale of piece of land was entered into between the parties and after filing of suit, some amendments were felt necessary to be incorporated in the plaint although at that time the written statements were not filed on behalf of defendants/respondents. He further submitted that there was also necessity of making amendment in the area of land which were transferred through the sale deed and these amendments would not change the nature of suit although the Court below has rejected the prayer for amendment. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar Agarwal Versus Rajmala Exports Private Limited reported in (2012) 5 SCC 337 and also Prakash Manjhi and Others Versus Nunlal Mahto and Others reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Jhar 3583. Learned counsel also submitted that presently the suit is at the stage of evidence from the side of plaintiff.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents in both the cases submitted that the deed was executed by the petitioners in the year 2005 but afterthought the suit was filed after lapse of three years in the year 2008 and after lapse of one year, the amendment was sought in the plaint in the year 2009 so the plaintiff was not keeping due diligence in the matter although these facts were already within the knowledge of plaintiff at the time of filing of Title Suit. Therefore, the Court below has rightly rejected the prayer for amendment on both occasions.;