MD. ABDUL RAHIM Vs. MUSLEM MIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Datta, learned counsel, that the plaintiff petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint before the Ld. Trial Court. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court [Civil Judge, (Jr.Div,) Court No.3, Udaipur] by the impugned order dtd. 14/9/2022 passed in Civil Misc. 06 of 2022, rejected the said application mainly on the ground that the plaintiff applicant by the proposed amendment wanted to incorporate new facts in the pleadings. Mr. Raju Datta, counsel appearing for the plaintiff applicant has agitated before this court that the amendment will neither incorporate new facts in the case nor it will change the nature and character of the suit. Counsel submits that the plaintiff applicant by the said amendment only wants to remove some technical errors from the pleadings.

(3.) Having considered the submissions of Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel and having perused the record available before this Court, I am of the view that the plaintiff applicant has arguable points in the matter and as such, the revision application should be heard on merit.