[ad_1]
passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Mahnar, Vaishali in Title Suit No. 49/1984 whereby and
whereunder the learned trial court allowed the amendment petition
filed by the plaintiffs/respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the amendment has been sought at a very belated stage as the suit
was filed in the year 1984 and the written statement was filed on
07.07.1986. After closure of evidence, the record was put up for
argument in the year 2013, still the plaintiffs did not seek any
amendment till that time and when the argument has been
continuing in the matter, in order to fill up lacuna in their case, the
amendment has been sought. No due diligence has been shown.
Therefore, the amendment is hit by Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’). The learned
counsel further submits that earlier the plaintiffs have been
claiming that Sita Mahto was their grandfather. Now they are
denying this fact. The plaintiffs want to delay the disposal of the
suit and only, for this reason, they have filed the amendment
application, but the learned trial court wrongly allowed the said
amendment petition.
[ad_2]
Source link