CW- 3239/2010-Puna Lal Vs. Gopal Lal & Anr. Judgment dt.5.4.10 1/2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3239/2010 Puna Lal Vs. Gopal Lal & Anr. Date of order : 5th April, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Manish Shishodia for the petitioner. Mr. Sajjan Singh) for the respondents. Mr. J.K. Bhaiya ) ------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. By the impugned order dated 19.2.2010, the learned trial court has rejected the plaintiff's application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to incorporate certain subsequent developments. The suit in question itself was filed in the year 2008 and the developments have taken place on 19.4.2008 relating to some criminal proceedings which may have bearing on the present suit filed for declaration and cancellation of sale deed and the amendment application was filed by the plaintiff on 12.12.2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issues have been framed and the plaintiff's evidence have to begin now and, therefore, subsequent amendment ought to have been allowed by the learned trial court with liberty to file additional written statement by the defendant if found necessary only within a stipulated period. 4. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the reasons given by the court below, this court is of the opinion that the amendment in question at this stage could have been allowed by the CW- 3239/2010-Puna Lal Vs. Gopal Lal & Anr. Judgment dt.5.4.10 2/2 court below and unnecessary disallowing of the amendment in plaint at this stage could further generate unnecessary litigation which could have been avoided. 5. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.2.2010 is set aside. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. ` item No.3 babulal/