IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1623 of 2006 (M/S) Smt. Indra Vaishya ......... Petitioner Versus Judge, Small Causes Courts and another ......... Respondents. Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.C.Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. As per office report, respondent no. 2 has refused to accept service, hence, presumed to have been served. No one appears for respondent no. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also seen & perused the impugned order dated 25th September, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Nainital refusing the prayer of the petitioner- plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. I have seen the Amendment Application also and find that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amendment prayed and sought for ought to have been allowed. This petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner’s application for amendment of the plaint is hereby allowed with the consequence that the petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint to the extent indicated in the amendment application. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 11.11.2008 A