HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.450 of 2005 (M/S) Ram Charan S/o Sri Mangru … Petitioner Versus Civil Judge (J.D.), Ramnagar District Nainital and others …. Respondents Dated:- 27th July, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, the learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Gopal Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner. List of hearing cases has been revised. No one appears for the private respondents. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff, had filed a suit for the cancellation of the sale deed. In paragraph 9 of the plaint, it has been stated that the petitioner has paid the court fee for the cancellation of the sale deed as well as for injunction. However, the plaintiff only prayed for the relief of the cancellation of the sale deed. Upon realizing the error, the plaintiff filed an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that it would delay the disposal of the suit and, even otherwise, it was unnecessary for incorporating the relief of injunction. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that since the court fee had already been paid for the relief of the injunction and the amendment prayed by the petitioner neither changed the nature of the suit nor would have resulted in delaying the proceedings, the court below has acted in a very technical manner in rejecting the application. The court below should have been liberal and should have allowed the amendment application of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The amendment application is allowed on payment of cost of Rs.500/-, which will be deposited by the petitioner before the trial court within three weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The amount so deposited can be withdrawn by the defendants without furnishing any security. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 27.07.2010 LSR