O R D E R

The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated

20.10.2020, passed on I.A.No.15 in O.S.No.450/2011 on the file of I Addl. II Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru 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. The trial Court framed issues. Thereafter the petitioner led evidence and closed his side. When the case was posted for further evidence of respondent, petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint. Respondent submitted no objection to allow the said application. The trial Court after hearing the parties, rejected the said application vide order dated 20.10.2020. Hence this writ petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Though notice was issued to the respondent, inspite of service of notice, none appears for the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint and he has explained the reasons that inspite of due diligence, the petitioner could not raise the matter before commencement of trail. The said aspect was not considered by the court below. He submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is perverse and arbitrary. Hence he prays to allow the writ petition.

5 Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent. When the case was posted for further evidence of the respondent, petitioner filed an application for amendment of plaint wherein it is stated in the application that due to typographical error and also by mistake, eastern and western boundaries of the suit schedule is exchanged and recently he came to know the said fact and the said fact has not been disputed by the respondent by filing objections. The petitioner has explained that inspite of due diligence, petitioner could not raise the said issue before commencement of trial. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, if the application for amendment is allowed, no injustice would be caused to the other side. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. SANJEEV BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR., reported in AIR 2022 SC 4256, Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down guidelines in para-70 that if amendment is required for effective and proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the proposed amendment does not result in injustice to the other side and that the delay in applying for amendment alone is not a ground to disallow the prayer. The trial Court has rejected the application solely on the ground that it was filed after commencement of trial without looking into the reasons assigned by the petitioner. Hence the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the said application.

7. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER The writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order is set aside.

I.A.No.15 is allowed.

Liberty is reserved to the respondent to file an additional written statement.