Amendments to pleadings that change the nature of the case or prejudice the rights of the opposing party cannot be allowed, especially after evidence has concluded.

JUDGMENT :

Heard leaned Counsel for the parties.

2. By way of this C.M.P. the order dated 01.12.2023 has been assailed.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Original Suit No. 56 of 2022 was instituted on behalf of the plaintiff-Balram Mahato against Kiran Devi Tulsyan and Arun Kumar Sanganeria who are petitioners herein in which the relief for cancellation of sale-deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of wife of defendant No.2 was sought and also the relief for permanent injunction in regard to the property in suit against the defendant was also sought.

4. It is also further submitted in that suit after completion of pleading of both the parties, the evidence of both the parties have been concluded. At the stage of argument an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. in which the amendment was sought to this effect that in place of Dalgovind Mahato name of Chutu Mahato be allowed to be written and in prayer clause it was also sought that if any previous sale-deed has been executed being in contravention of Section 46(1) (b) of the C.N.T. Act. also sought to be added. This amendment partly vague as no date of the sale-deed and particulars thereof is mentioned which are sought to be cancelled by way of amendment and so far as the deletion of the name of Dalgovind and in whose place the name Chutu is sought to be added, it would also prejudice the very rights of the petitioner/defendant which had accrued to him after conclusion of the evidence. As such the impugned order passed by the learned court-below is based on the perverse finding. It is also further submitted that since in revenue records the name of Chutu is shown, therefore, he wants to add the name of Chutu in his plaint in place of Dalgovind.

5. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party/plaintiff opposed the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and contended that the plaintiff has sought relief for cancellation of any those previous sale-deeds which were executed in contravention of Section 46 (1) (b) of the C.N.T. Act though he has not given the details of them as it would prejudice his right.

6. The copy of the plaint of Original Suit No. 56 of 2022 is Annexure No.1 of this C.M.P. From the bare perusal of this plaint, it is found that this suit was filed on behalf of the plaintiff/Opp. Party Balram Mahato with these averments that the property in question initially belonged to Hargovind Mahato whose name was also recorded in record of rights in last survey settlement finally published in 1964 and after his death this very property in suit devolved upon Amrit Mahato and after death of Amrit Mahato the property of suit devolved upon the plaintiff Balram Mahato being the successor and legal heir of Amrit Mahato.

6.1 It has also been specifically averred that initially the property was in ownership and possession of Dalgovind Mahato and after his death the father of plaintiff and after the death of his father the plaintiffs are in ownership and possession of the same and the sale-deed which is sought to have been cancelled by seeking the prayer in the plaint is stated to be executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the wife of defendant No.2 without any authority being in contravention of the provisions of Section 46(1) (b) of the C.N.T. Act.

7. In the Original Suit, written statement was also filed on behalf of defendants who are petitioners herein, the copy of the same is Annexure No.2 of this C.M.P.

8. Admittedly, in the Original Suit No. 56 of 2022 after completion of pleading of parties, the issues were framed and evidence of both the parties have been concluded and the suit was at the stage of argument. At that stage an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff Balram Mahato for amendment in the plaint with these averments that in para 4 of the plaint after the ‘word’ grand-father “Dalgovind” is to be deleted and in its place “Chutu” is to be inserted and further this amendm