-:Order :-
- Heard the Ld. Advocates for both the parties. Read the Contents of this application. endorsement made by the defendant. The present application has given for amendment in Ex. So and So. An Application to join legal heirs of the deceased defendant No. 3 it is very settled principle of law that if the proposed amendment is necessary to determine the real disputes between the parties and if it does not otherwise cause injustice to the other side, such amendment should ee allowed.
- In the case of Sanatan Jena Vs. Babuji Sahu Reported in AIR 1990 Ori. 186, the Honourable high court has held that all amendments should be allowed, which satisfy the two conditions (1) of not working injustice to the other side and (2) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
- In the case of Gulabrai Mohanlal Thakur Vs. Dolatram Mohanlal Thaku reported in 1999(2) GLR 1962, The Honourable high court has held that court should be extremely liberal in granting prayer for amendment of the pleading unless serious or irreparable loss is cause to the other side.
- In the case of Sankerlal Vs. Kanaiyalal reported in AIR 1989 Ori. 133, the Honourable high court has held that where there is a case of mis description of parties/properties, it is to the court to allowed an amedment of plaint or any time and the question of limitation would not arise.
- in the case on hand, it appear that neither character of the suit is changed by amendment nor the same is going to be caused any injury or prejudice to the defendant. Hence, in the interest of justice, I pass the following Order.
Order
This application is allowed
The Plaintiff is permitted under order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.Code to amend the application exhibit So and So as prayed for.
No order as to costs.
Place
Date
Sign.