The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to allow the necessary amendments in pleadings and can impose costs for frivolous litigation.

ORDER

1. This case has checkered history.

2. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3062/2014 before this Court challenging the order dated 28.01.2014, whereby application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, was dismissed.

3. The Civil Court on account of issues being framed in the suit and evidence of the plaintiffs being recorded and considering the fact of dismissal of stay petition by the High Court, found that the petitioners did not exercise their due diligence in seeking amendment of their pleadings and as such amendment application came to be dismissed.

4. The writ petition of the petitioners was decided finally by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 27.11.2014 and while writing the order, this Court found that in the interest of justice, documents sought to be placed on record were allowed to be taken on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents-defendants.

5. The petitioners immediately filed the present Misc. Application No.379/2014 for seeking correction/modification in the order dated 27.11.2014. The Coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing counsel for both the parties, modified the order and disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the respondents-defendants and the amendment application filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was allowed and amended plaint incorporating amendment was to be taken on record by the Trial Court and as such, Misc. Application No.391/2014 was disposed of.

6. The respondents-defendants filed Review Petition No.3/2015 in S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.379/2014 for seeking recalling of the order dated 28.11.2014, passed by this Court correcting the order dated 27.11.2014. This Court while hearing the matter recorded a finding that order dated 28.11.2014, was passed by the Court without giving any opportunity of hearing to counsel for the respondents and as such, the order dated 28.11.2014 was set aside and Misc. Application No.379/2014 filed by the petitioners was ordered to be heard on merits and at the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties, the proceedings before the Trial Court were stayed.

7. This Court finds that there was yet another S.B. Writ Misc. Application No.74/2019 was filed for recalling the order dated 14.01.2016 passed by this Court and prayer of the respondents to recall said order was rejected.

8. This Court at this juncture would like to express that filing of such continuous misc. applications and recalling application needs to be discouraged due to frivolous litigation initiated by the parties and as such, the litigants/parties do not seem to be pursuing their remedy for seeking justice in proper Courts and on one pretext or another, this Court is burdened with frivolous application. The resultant position remains to decide misc. application No.379/2014 filed by the petitioners for recalling the order dated 27.11.2014.

9. Learned counsel submitted that once this Court had allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners and permitted amendment as sought by them in their plaint and initial order dated 27.11.2014 was rectified by passing the order dated 28.11.2014, this Court needs to permit the petitioners to bring the required amendment in their pleadings and as such, the relief sought by the petitioners in their writ petition may be granted.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Alok Chaturvedi submitted that at the time of passing of the initial order dated 27.11.2014, no objection was raised by the respondents and this Court allowed the writ petition but inadvertently while dictating the order dated 27.11.2014, the Court recorded that the documents filed by the petitioner may be taken on record and such an inadvertent error has been allowed to be rectified by the Court by passing the detailed order on 28.11.2014.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners on merits of the matter submitted that the present s