IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment of plaint cannot be allowed after commencement of trial.

U.C. Dhyani, J.—Present Civil Revision has been filed by the plaintiff/ revisionist with the prayer that the impugned order dated 15.07.2015, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division ) Nainital, in Civil Suit No. 68 of 2009 (Dhananjay Singh Bisht vs. Shamsher Singh @ Surendra and other), be set aside and the amendment application of the revisionist may be allowed.

2. The grounds taken up by the plaintiff/revisionist in this Civil Revision are as follows:

(a) Because the suit was filed by the revisionist seeking permanent injunction regarding the suit property called ‘Mayvilla Kothi’ with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint.

(b) Because the basis of the suit is that father of the parties have not partitioned his property among the legal hairs during his life time.

(c) Because after the death of late Narendra Singh Bisht, name of all his four sons and widow was mutated equally for his properties.

(d) Because ultimately as mentioned in para 5 mutual settlement was entered and it was decided that the plaintiff will keep the ‘Mayvilla Kothi’ in Nainital as well as 1/3rd of rent recovered from Delhi Property. Hence, since the year 2011, he is residing continuously in suit property.

(e) Because this plaint was replied by the parties by filing written submission which are filed here to this application.

(f) Because revisionist preferred a amendment application seeking insertion of some paragraphs in the plaint which are basically explanatory in nature to elaborate the pleadings of the plaint.

(g) Because this amendment sought by the revisionist is not changing the nature of the suit. This amendment application is objected by the defendants.

(h) Because the impugned order is passed by the learned trial court as it is filed to lingering on the proceeding. Hon’ble Court has not appreciated the settled legal position.

(i) Because the impugned order deserves to be quashed by this Court and till the disposal of this revision, proceedings are needed to be stayed.

3. After having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and having perused the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. moved by the plaintiff was rightly dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nainital, vide order dated 15.07.2015. The facts, which were sought to be introduced by way of amendment in the plaint, were already in the knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not been able to show as to why no effort was made by him to incorporate such amendments in the plaint earlier. The suit is listed for plaintiff’s evidence (F.H.) since 23.09.2013. The order impugned will indicate that the plaintiff has filed only one affidavit till date, in support of his case. When, on 26.03.2015, the plaintiff was directed by the trial court to adduce all his evidence, then, instead of filing the evidence, an application for amendment in the plaint was moved on 24.04.2015 with inordinate delay. Such an action of the plaintiff was not permissible in law and, therefore, has rightly been disapproved by the Court below.

4. A perusal of the facts, which were sought to be introduced by the plaintiff by way of amendment, will reveal that, they were only clarificatory in nature. True, the nature of suit was not changed, but, at the same time, the said move of the plaintiff was highly belated. The plaintiff only wanted to elaborate and explain certain facts, which were already on record.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist cited a decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mount Mary Enterprises vs. M/s Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (128) RD 138. to emphasise that the amendment application should normally be allowed, unless by virtue of the amendment, the nature of the suit is changed or some prejudice is caused to the other party. The facts of the instant case are different from Mount Mary Enterprises’ case (supra), in as much as, in Mount Mary Enterprises vs. M/s Jivratna Medi Treat Pvt. Ltd case,