JUDGMENT
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7.6.2004 whereby the petitioners petition for amendment in the plaint filed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the CPC has been rejected. According to the plaintiffs-petitioners, the Court below failed to properly consider the facts and circumstances and also that the plaintiffs are the persons coming from the rural areas having no knowledge of law, could not earlier file the application for amendment. According to them they shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and that there will be multiplicity of legal proceedings, if the controversies between the parties are not completely decided. It was urged that the Court below has erroneously rejected the petition without assigning any cogent reason. According to the petitioners, though the petition for amendment has not been happily drafted, the reason for not filing the amendment petition earlier has been mentioned in the petition which could have been considered by the learned Court below. But the learned Court below without any proper consideration of the facts and circumstances, has taken a pedantic view and has erroneously rejected the petition.
2. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, urged that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order of the learned Court below and the order has been passed on the basis of the facts and materials before the Court. The petitioners have failed to make out the case that they were serious and diligent and due to any circumstance beyond their control they could not file the amendment application earlier. Learned counsel submitted that the proposed amendments are unnecessary and the same are not required to be brought on record for the adjudication of the controversies between the parties and as such the petitioners’ petition for amendment has been rightly rejected.
3. After hearing the parties’ and perusing the records, I find that the plaintiffs-petitioners, in their petition for amendment have stated that they recently came to know that certain important facts could not be incorporated in the plaint at the time of filing the suit. The plaintiffs had no knowledge about the wrong entry in the Khatian earlier, which is sought to be declared as wrong, ab initio, void and not binding on the plaintiff, by way of amendment. It was further stated that on the basis of the said wrong entry in the Khatian, some sale-deeds have been executed by late Shiv Charan Gorai which do not create any title and in that view, addition of those facts are necessary for the effective and complete adjudication of all the controversies between the parties. They have also explained that they were diligent but in the said circumstances they could not file the petition for amendment earlier. In that view, the learned Court below has not duly applied his mind on the materials on record as well as the statements made in the petition and has erroneously exercised his discretion by rejecting the petitioners’ petition for amendment. The said order, is thus, unsustainable and is quashed. This application is allowed. Consequently, the amendment, as prayed for by the petitioners, is allowed.
4. However, the belated steps by the plaintiff even for the said reason has caused harassment and inconvenience to the defendant-respondent, this petition as well as the amendment is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- in the Court below to the defendant-respondent by the plaintiffs-petitioners within a period of three weeks from today.
5. It is made clear that the defendant has got right to file additional written statement or amend the written statement already filed, for the purpose of meeting the allegations/statements brought about by the said amendments in the plaint.