O R D E R

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

06.07.2019, passed on I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.8062/2008 on the file of III Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru has filed this writ petition.

2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:

Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent. Respondent filed written statement denying the plaint averments. The trial Court framed issues. Petitioner led evidence and closed his side. Respondent also led evidence and closed his side. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner. The said application came to be allowed and Commissioner visited the site and submitted a report. After going through the report, petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint. The said application was opposed by the respondent by filing objections. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, rejected the said application. Hence this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after closure of evidence of the parties, petitioner filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner. The said application came to be allowed and Commissioner was appointed. He has submitted a report and on the basis of the report, the petitioner was forced to file an application for amendment of plaint. He submits that the petitioner has explained the reasons for filing the application for amendment of plaint at a belated stage. The trial Court has rejected the application solely on the ground that the case is posted for arguments and the petitioner does not know about his own property. Hence he submits that the trial Court has not assigned any proper reasons for rejecting the application. Hence on these grounds he prays to allow the writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner filed the application for amendment of plaint when the case was posted for arguments. He submits that the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause for filing the application at a belated stage. The trial Court was justified in rejecting the application. Hence he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

6. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 7. Petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent. Respondent has denied the plaint averments. Both the parties have led evidence. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court. The Court Commissioner was appointed and he visited the site and submitted the report. In the report, the Court Commissioner has shown the correct boundaries and survey number of the suit property. The cause of action arose for the petitioner to file the application for amendment of plaint in respect of the suit survey number and boundaries. The petitioner was not aware of the same till the Commissioner has filed the report about the boundaries. The basis for filing the application for amendment of plaint is the Commissioner report submitted to the Court Commissioner. The petitioner has explained the reason for filing the application for amendment of plaint at a belated stage, i.e., after the commencement of trial. The trial Court without considering the reasons assigned by the petitioner in filing the application at a belated stage, has rejected the said application. Delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. The trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application for amendment filed by the petitioner. The object of allowing an application for amendment of plaint is to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings provided the amendment does not result in injustice to the other side. The proposed amendment does not change the nature of the suit. Hence on this grou