Hari Singh, Advocate Vs. Mahaveer Sabha and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammad.....that the court below has wrongly and illegally acted in dismissing the prayer of amendment in the pleadings of the revisionist-defendant. certain facts have also been noted in the impugned judgment. the evidence of the plaintiff is still not closed, the occasion for the defendant to lead his evidence, therefore, did not arise till date.4. from the facts and circumstances demonstrated on the record, it is found that this application for amendment is wholly misconceived. now by virtue of this proposed amendment the plaintiff intends to take a summersault of his original case which he took in his written statement.5. u has been admitted in the pleadings of the revisionist-defendant that mahaveer sabha is the plaintiff and the owner of the property from which the building in question was taken on rent by him. one mr. balwant singh was looking after the affairs of the mahaveer sabha in his capacity as manager of the entire property. by virtue of the proposed amendment the defendant-applicant is trying to get rid of the admission of relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. this cannot be legally possible for the court to permit such amendment. otherwise also there is.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Umeshwar Pandey, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist.

2. This revision challenges the order dated 10.8.2006 whereby, petitioner's prayer of amendment in the written statement under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. has been dismissed.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that the court below has wrongly and illegally acted in dismissing the prayer of amendment in the pleadings of the revisionist-defendant. Certain facts have also been noted in the impugned Judgment. The evidence of the plaintiff is still not closed, the occasion for the defendant to lead his evidence, therefore, did not arise till date.

4. From the facts and circumstances demonstrated on the record, it is found that this application for amendment is wholly misconceived. Now by virtue of this proposed amendment the plaintiff intends to take a summersault of his original case which he took in his written statement.

5. U has been admitted in the pleadings of the revisionist-defendant that Mahaveer Sabha is the plaintiff and the owner of the property from which the building in question was taken on rent by him. One Mr. Balwant Singh was looking after the affairs of the Mahaveer Sabha in his capacity as Manager of the entire property. By virtue of the proposed amendment the defendant-applicant is trying to get rid of the admission of relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties. This cannot be legally possible for the Court to permit such amendment. Otherwise also there is unreasonable delay in moving this petition because the plaintiffs evidence in the case, as observed in the impugned order itself, was closed way back in the year 2002. The defendant has not proceeded to record his evidence before the trial court. Now at this belated stage in the year 2006 he is coming with this proposed amendment. The proviso attached to Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. prohibits bringing such amendment in the pleadings after the commencement of the trial. Therefore, also the amendment as had been sought by the petitioner appears to have been rightly rejected by the court below. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or procedural error as to call for an interference against the same inrevisional jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The revision is without merit and is hereby dismissed.