1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20th November, 2006 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Srinagar in a suit titled Ali Mohammad Magloo v. Abdul Hamid Magloo whereby and whereunder application of the plaintiffs for permitting to amend the plaint came to be dismissed.

2. Heard.

Plaintiffs have sought twin reliefs in the application; one for arraying Ghulam Nabi as a party in the array of defendants; and second to amend para-12 of the plaint.

3. The prayer for arraying Ghulam Nabi Magloo as a party defendant came to be rejected earlier and that order had attained finality and despite of that plaintiffs have sought again this prayer. It appears that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant was constrained to give up the prayer of arraying Ghulam Nabi Magloo as defendant when he was asked by trial court that prayer stands already rejected. Accordingly, application to that extent was not pressed by learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

4. The application for amending para-12 of the plaint came to be rejected rightly and legally for the following reasons:

5. In para-12 of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded how he got knowledge of the sale deed. In the amendment sought, the plaintiff has taken a different stand. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the un-amended plaint and relevant portion of the proposed plaint herein:

"That the plaintiff had no knowledge about the sale deed, but before the plaintiff has consulted his lawyer with regard to some legal problem and were he has come to know that the sale deed under challenge has been executed and the plaintiff without wasting any time, has approached to Sub Registrar Srinagar and move an application for the certified copy of the sale deed and it was on 15.12.1998 ..........."

"........... The plaintiff had not knowledge of the execution of the said deed and the plaintiff got the knowledge of the same when he obtained copy of the written statement filed before the Honble Munsiff Sub Registrar Srinagar till then the defendant had not handed over the possession of the suit property in terms of sale deed to the purchaser............."

6. Virtually by the proposed amendment the plaintiffs have sought introduction of new case. While reading the para-12 of the proposed amendment, it appears that plaintiff has virtually pleaded how they got knowledge contrary to the earlier stand as discussed above.

7. Para-12 is coached in such a way that it contains evidence which is against the mandate of Order 6 Rule 2 of Civil Procedure Code. It is beaten law of the land that pleadings shall contain statement in concise form of the material facts and not the evidence by which they are to be proved. Virtually, it appears that proposed amendment is aimed at to cause delay and introduce a new case.

8. The trial court has rightly held that plaintiff has sought amendment on so many occasions and caused delay. The impugned order is legal, speaking one and well reasoned, need no interference.

9. In view of the above discussion the revision petition merits to be dismissed with costs-quantified at Rs.5000/- payable to the defendants-respondents in equal shares.

Revision petition is accordingly dismissed along with all connected CMP(s).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document