_ f W m vi 200 ... W W (W) \ mmm mmwmm é? 311wm ‘ SE : HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE D W.P.(227) NC). FHRENDRA MISHRA 1687 OF 2008 i ! ‘ i - PETITEGNER ‘ PLAINTIFF i Prateek, § II S/ o Late Shri NandkiShore Mahashwari, Ag€d about 19 yBars, Earlier being minor was being rcprcscntcd through next friend unc1€ Manoj Maheshwari, howeVSr, now being major representing himself. R/o Gahj Line) Rajna/ndgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus RESPGNDEI‘ITS DEFENDANTS 1. Smt. Sarla i‘uaheshwari, Wd/o Late Shri Nandkishore Maheshwari, Aged about 35 years x i ‘2. Ku.‘ Sneha Maheshwari, D/o Late Shri Nandkishore Maheshwari; Aged about 9 years, Miner thraugh natural guardian Snit. Saria Maheshwari. V ! i I i" 3. i Smt. Godawari Devi, i Wdlo Late Shri Satyanarayan ‘ Maheshwari, Aged about 65 yearSV. 4, Devkaran Rathi, S/o Shri Ishwaflal Rathi, Aged about S5 years, If 5. Ajay Kathi, Sfo Shri Ishwarlai Rathi, Aged about 3O years. N0. 1,2 and 5 all R/o Vikas Nagar, Rajnandgaon (CG) , No. 3 R/o Ganj Line, Rajnandgaon i (CG) (W22 address as mentioned above is, mu ear: WW —'FS/59— 3/2007 —30,ooo. WW,WI§,W Wm ‘gi 200 am? m (13W) WWW L WW WW agaimm as per the cause title as mentioned in we impugned order, huweyen Lhe correct address is Respondents no, 1,2,4 and 5 all R/a 45 Vikiw Nagar, Tahsif and District Rainandgaon Fm ‘Vv‘l 3.4.2008 Shri Sumésh Bajaj, couns :1 for th€ petitioner. Shri Pramod h Vérma, Sr‘ Advocate with Shr‘i Sumit Verma, counsel for the respondents. By this pétition under A1“ icle 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 17.8.2007 (Annexure Pf’?) and 3.1.2008 (Annexure P/ 10) whereby the applications preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff for amendment in the plaint, has been rejected with an observation that by allowing the proposed amendment a new cause of action would arise and the nature of the suit would be changed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was / filed on behalf of minor plairtiff through is uncle nameiy Mahdi Maheshwari as his next friend. After attaining majority when the petitioner/plaintiff examined the accounts of respondents No. 1 81. 2, who are his mother and younger sister, some new facts were discovered and on the basisyoi such discovery, he proposed certain amendments by filing the above applications. Referring to Section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 it is argued that Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree. is minor, he may insjtute the suit or make an application i mmm’ ,W‘ ‘ ‘—’FS/s9— 3/2007 —3o,ooo. mmm, m, W113? mmm $ ' WWW mmm WWWiiWW %3if?m31raw within th€ same period aftar tha ‘disability has ccassd. In tha instant case, the petitioner attained ma ty on 25.8.2006 and the cause title was amended on 29.1.2007 a d thereafter, the applications for amendment Were filed on 27.6.2 07 and 20.12.2007. Thus, from the facts mentioned above, it is cle r that the petitioner could institute the suit on the date when the a plications for amendment were filed and the Court below ought to ha e allowed the proposed amendment. Having heard learned perused the impugned orders, t u nsel for the parties and having petition is allowed. Both the orders impugned i.e. orders dated 17. .2007 (Annexure P/7) and 3.1.2008 (Annexure P/ lOJ’al‘e set aside Consequently, the application for amendment dated 27.6.2007 ( nnexure P/5) is allowed and the amend the plaint accordingly. He petitioner/plaintiff is permitted o ; is to carry out the amendment within a period of two weeks from ’ today. Sdl- V7 2 iDhirendra Mishrafil 1 Jedge a... u—u mWWW Hrs/59; 3/2007 40,000; .- mm ‘. 1R 200 WW (W) i j l