D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.825/2008 Smt. Shimla Devi Vs. Civil Judge (JD), Hindaun City, Distt.Karauli & Ors. Date of Order :: May 02, 2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Gajendra Bhawan on behalf of Mr. Anoop Dhand for the appellant. *** This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9.10.2006 whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. The appellant had filed the writ petition against the order of the Civil Judge (JD), Hindaun City, District Karauli dated 16.8.2004 by which her application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial court has wrongly rejected the application as belatedly filed whereas such application can be filed at any stage of proceedings. It was argued that under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the Court has power to allow amendment even at the stage of final hearing of the proceedings before pronouncement of the judgment. The learned trial court erred in law in holding that the object of application filed by the appellant was not bonafide. There was no basis for the learned trial court to hold so because the appellant was described in the plaint as adopted daughter of late Ram Prasad inadvertently and it was this bonafide mistake which was sought to be corrected. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as also the impugned order passed by the learned trial court, we find that though the -2- basis of the application seeking amendment was the alleged inadvertent and bonafide mistake in describing the appellant herself as adopted daughter of late Ram Prasad but in fact in para 2 of the originally filed plaint, the appellant pleaded in no uncertain terms that she was taken in adoption by late Ram Prasad when she only aged about 5 years as per the Hindu customs and rites in the presence of elders of the community. It was in that context that the learned trial court held that the ground on which the application was filed was not correct and that the object of the application was not bonafide. The learned trial court held that if the amendment sought for is permitted, it would change the nature of the suit as basically the plaintiff filed the suit for claiming the entire properties left by deceased Ram Prasad. In view of the reasonings given by the learned trial court, we do not find that the learned Single Judge erred in law in rejecting the writ petition. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. (NARAYAN ROY),CJ. Skant/-