Metro Industries Vs. Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority and ors.

civil - section 151 and order vi, rule 17 of the code of civil procedure 1908 - order of munsif rejecting amendment application of plaintiff was challenged - change of nature without assigning reason as to how change would be effected in nature of suit - held, suit was at its initial stage and it had not even reached at the evidence stage - plaintiff only prayed for addition of some statement regarding the fate of the appeal filed by it - there was nothing in the said statement which would change the nature of the suit -court below has erred in refusing the prayer for amendment made at the initial stage of this suit though there was nothing on record to show that the proposed amendment would in any way prejudice the defendants - impugned order set aside - amendment application allowed - motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant......for 1st and 2nd respondents and mr. p. modi for the state. 2. in this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 12.8.2005 passed by the learned munsif, saraikela in t.s. no. 9 of 2003 whereby the learned munsif has refused to allow the petition for amendment filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under order vi rule 17 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure. 3. from perusal of the order of the learned court below, it appears that while refusing the amendment learned court below has entered into the effect and merit of the proposed amendment and has given a finding which reads thus : abhilekh awlokan se aspast hai ki wadi ko yah samajhne ka kya adhar hai ki appeal kharij ho gaya. aisa kuchh bhi abhilekh par uplabdh nahi hai. and on that basis the learned court below has observed that by allowing the amendment as sought for, there will be a new addition in the suit and nature of the suit will change. for recording the said finding no reason has been assigned as to how the nature of suit will change by inserting the amendment prayed for by the plaintiff. 4. from perusal of the record it appears that the suit is at its initial stage and it has even not reached at the evidence stage. plaintiff has only prayed for addition of some statement regarding the fate of the appeal filed by it. there is nothing in the said statement which will change the nature of the suit. in my view, the learned court below has erred in refusing the prayer for amendment made at the initial stage of this suit though there is nothing on record to show that the proposed amendment would in any way prejudice the defendants-respondents. 5. for the said reason the impugned order dated 12.8.2005 passed by the learned munsif, saraikela in t.s. no. 9 of 2003 is set aside and this writ application is allowed. consequently the plaintiffs' petition for amendment of the plaint is also allowed.