The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings should be allowed if necessary for determining the real question in controversy, do not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side, and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 17th April, 2018 passed by the 05th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Shrirampur rejecting application for amendment of plaint at Exhibit 69 in R.C.S. No. 263 of 2013.

3. Though there are numerous respondents in the present petition, many of the respondents are unserved. The main contesting respondent is respondent No. 6 who is represented by Mr. Pallod. Therefore, I proceed to hear the petition, rather than waiting for service of notices in petition on non-contesting Respondents.

4. Plaintiff has filed the suit inter alia for cancellation of the sale deed dated 11.09.2003 in respect of land gut No. 76 allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No. 6. While the suit for cancellation of sale deed is restricted only in respect of land bearing gut No. 76, in respect of prayer for partition and injunction, the plaintiff included both the lands bearing gut Nos. 76 and 77 in the description of the suit property. Defendant No. 6 appeared in the suit and filed his written statement making a statement in para No. 12 thereof that he purchased both the properties described in para No. 1A and 1B of the plaint. In para No. 1B of the plaint, land bearing gut No. 77 is included. Thus, the defendant No. 6 appears to have given clear knowledge about purchase of gut No. 77 in the written statement itself.

5. Later, when the Trial in the suit commenced, the defendant No. 6 filed his affidavit of evidence on 30.08.2017, in which he made a categorical statement in para No. 15 thereof that by sale deed dated 11.09.2003, he purchased the land admeasuring 22R out of gut No. 77 for consideration of Rs. 86,000/-. Thus while a hint was given in the written statement about purchase of land at gut No. 77, details of the transactions came to be disclosed in the affidavit of evidence dated 30.08.2017.

6. Claiming that the knowledge of execution of sale deed in respect of land gut No. 77 was acquired by the plaintiff for the first time on filing of affidavit of evidence by the defendant No. 6 on 30.08.2017, the she moved an application for amendment of the plaint on 04.01.2018 seeking incorporation of challenge to the sale deed in respect of gut No. 77 as well. The application was resisted by the defendant No. 6. The Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application holding that the name of the defendant No. 6 was reflected on the 7/12 extract of gut No. 77 before filing of the suit and that additionally by filing written statement, the defendant No. 6 made it known to the plaintiff that the land at gut No. 77 was also purchased. The Trial Court has therefore accused the petitioner/plaintiff for not showing due diligence and has proceeded to reject the application.

7. Appearing for the petitioner, Ms. Zaware, the learned counsel would submit that the plaintiff/petitioner is an illiterate old lady and did not properly appreciate the contents of the written statement wherein specific gut number was not stated. She would submit that on a mere statement of purchase of land at para No. 1A and 1B did not give a clear and specific idea of transaction of alleged sale deed dated 11.09.2003 in respect of land gut No. 77. She would submit that the exact knowledge of the sale deed dated 11.09.2003 in respect of land gut No. 77 was acquired by the plaintiff only after filing of affidavit of evidence by the defendant No. 6 on 30.08.2017. She would therefore submit that the petitioner/plaintiff was diligent enough in moving an application for amendment immediately after acquisition of such knowledge. Ms. Zaware would further submit that allowing the amendment would result in saving multiplicity of proceedings as plaintiff/petitioner would be required to institute one more suit for challenging the transactions in respect of property at land gut No. 77 if the amendment is disallowed. She relies upo