SBCWP NO.1866/2008 –MUNICIPAL BOARD AMET V/S SOHAN LAL AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.31.7.2008 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1866/2008 Municipal Board, Amet versus Sohan Lal and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.B.R.Arora, for the petitioner. Mr.Deelip Kawadia, for respondents DATE OF JUDGMENT : 31st July, 2008. JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dtd.31.1.2008 passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. of the plainitff. SBCWP NO.1866/2008 –MUNICIPAL BOARD AMET V/S SOHAN LAL AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.31.7.2008 2/4 3. In the suit for injunction filed against the Municipal Board, Amet, the plaintiff sought amendment in para 3 of the plaint to the effect that instead of averments that the property in question was purchased by him 32 years ago in the year 1970, the words “34 years ago in 1968 by sale-deed” be substituted. The said amendment was allowed by the learned trial Court by the impugned order. 4. The learned Counsel for the defendant – petitioner Mr. B.R. Arora vehemently submitted that there was gross delay on the part of the plaintiff to seek said amendment. He also submitted that similar amendment application was earlier rejected by the learned trial Court in offshoot suit filed for compensation by the plaintiff upon the removal of his disputed construction for which he had filed the present suit for injunction and therefore, the learned trial Court could not allow such amendment. 5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff – respondent opposed these submissions and submitted that the amendment allowed by the learned trial Court was not estopped by the earlier rejection which was in the suit of different nature, namely, for compensation and SBCWP NO.1866/2008 –MUNICIPAL BOARD AMET V/S SOHAN LAL AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.31.7.2008 3/4 against dismissal of said suit, the first appeal filed by the plaintiff is pending in this Court. He has further submitted that the amendment allowed by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be belated and even if some delay is assumed to be there, the same should be deemed to have been condoned by the learned trial Coiurt while allowing the said amendment. He further submitted that the amendment was of the nature which is not likely to change the character of the suit and, therefore, the learned trial Court has not erred in allowing the said amendment subject to payment of cost of Rs.1500/-. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel, this Court finds no error in the impugned order of the learned trial Court in allowing the said amendment application. The amendment on the basis of a sale-deed claimed by the plaintiff for claiming injunction against the Municipal Board which reflected that the said property was purchased by him way back in the year 1968 as against the averment already made that it was so purchased by an oral agreement in the year 1970 is not an averment which is likely to cause any prejudice to the defendant – Municipal Board. The trial admittedly is yet to commence in the present case as the plaintiff's evidence has not yet been recorded. SBCWP NO.1866/2008 –MUNICIPAL BOARD AMET V/S SOHAN LAL AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.31.7.2008 4/4 Therefore, the said amendment cannot be said to be contrary to the proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. also. The amendment application also cannot be said to be delayed so much which would debar the learned trial Court from condoning such delay. 7. Thus, this court finds no force in the writ petition of the defendant Municipal Board and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No. Ss/-