CW-7472/2009-Radheshyam & Ors. Vs. Vasudev & Ors. Judgment dt.30.7.09 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7472/2009 Radheshyam & Ors. Vs. Vasudev & Ors. Date of order : 30th July, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. I.R. Choudhary) for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Soni ) ------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.5.2009 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs submits that only amendment sought in the plaint that instead of point E F G H marked in the map produced with the plaint, the points A B C D which included the land of public way also in the disputed land of the defendant, the patta of which was issued by the panchayat and the cancellation was sought in the suit and, therefore, the plaintiff has CW-7472/2009-Radheshyam & Ors. Vs. Vasudev & Ors. Judgment dt.30.7.09 2/3 acted with due diligence and cannot be said to be reckless in pointing out the said mistake at the instance of plaintiff or counsel by seeking appropriate amendment in the plaint. 4. The learned trial court rejected the said amendment on the ground that the same was highly belated and was moved at the fag end of the trial and since the suit is pending since 1996 and plaintiffs' own evidence took time between 1991 to 2001 and the defendants' evidence took time from 2001 to 2008 and 26.2.2008 to 19.8.2008 for rebuttal of the evidence of the plaintiffs, therefore, it cannot be believed that the plaintiff was not aware of the relief claimed in the said suit and instead of E F G H of land in question were to be marked as A B C D in the said suit. The learned trial court held that this would enlarge the scope of the suit and same cannot be permitted at the fag end of the trial when the suit itself listed for final hearing. 5. Considering the averments made at the Bar and having perused the reasons given in the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial court has not committed any error in rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. CW-7472/2009-Radheshyam & Ors. Vs. Vasudev & Ors. Judgment dt.30.7.09 3/3 5. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this judgment be sent to opposite party as well as to learned trial court. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.s/9 babulal/