1 S.C.S.No.

1/2016
Latabai & others /Rambhau & others

th
 IN THE COURT OF 6    JT. CIVIL JUDGE, SR.DN.,NAGPUR.

ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO.78 

This   is   an  application  filed   by  the   plaintiffs    for

amendment   in   the   plaint.     The   application   is   opposed   by

defendants by filing their say overleaf the application.  

2] Perused   the   application   and   the   say.     Heard

learned counsel for both sides. Learned counsel for plaintiffs

submitted   that   the   amendment   is   necessary   and   will   not

change the nature of the suit and therefore it be allowed. As

against   this,   learned   counsel   for   the   defendants   contended

that   this   is   the   third   amendment   application   filed   by   the

plaintiffs and the same is filed to make improvements in his

version which are pointed out by the defendants.   Thus, the

application be rejected. 

3] The   application   is   filed   on   the   ground   that   the

daughter of defendants came for her delivery.   At that time
 2 S.C.S.No.1/2016
Latabai & others /Rambhau & others

defendants requested the plaintiffs that he wanted the room

of the suit property as his daughter came for some days for

delivery.   Looking to the need and cordial relations between

the   parties,   the   plaintiffs   handed   over   the   room   to   the

defendants for some months. However, the defendants did not

handed over possession of the said room.   In the said room

there is one Almirah in which the original Agreement to sell is

kept.   Similarly,   amendment   is   also   sought   about   the

conversation   recorded   by   the   plaintiffs   in   his   phone   on

22.12.2015   at   10.54   a.m.   in   which   defendants   admitted   to

hand over possession of that portion of the premises and some

material belonging to the plaintiffs.

4] So far as amendment sought through para no. 4 of

the present application is concerned, the same relates to the

conversation on phone dated 22.12.2015.   It is a subsequent

event which has arisen after filing of the suit.  Thus, the same

can be allowed.   Again the amendment sought through para

no.5 to replace the amount of Rs.5,50,000/­ by Rs.8,30,000/­

being formal in nature is allowed.  
 3 S.C.S.No.1/2016
Latabai & others /Rambhau & others

5] Before   dealing   with   the   amendment   proposed

through para no.3 of the present application, it is pertinent to

note   that   initially   the   suit   was   filed   on   the   basis   of   oral

agreement.   Subsequently by way of amendment application

(Exhibit   no.20)   plaintiffs   pleaded   that   his   son   found   xerox

copy   of   the   agreement   and   therefore   amendment   was

required to be made.   The said amendment application was

allowed.  In Exhibit no.20, it was pleaded that only xerox copy

of the agreement was found. 

6] Again, it will not be out of place to mention that,

initially the plaintiffs came with the case that there was oral

agreement in the year 1998 and as per the oral agreement the

suit   premises   was   handed   over   to   the   plaintiffs   by   the

defendants.     Thereafter,   plaintiffs   amended   their   case   and

came­up   with   the   case   that   they   found   xerox   copy   of   the

Agreement   to   sell   and   through   the   present   application

plaintiffs desire to plead that in the room given to defendants

there is an Almirah in which original copy of Agreement to
 4 S.C.S.No.1/2016
Latabai & others /Rambhau & others

sell   is   kept   and   the   said   room   is   in   possession   of   the

defendants.     It   is  pertinent  to note  that  as per the  original

pleading in the plaint, after the oral agreement the possession

of the suit premises was given to the plaintiffs.   Out of the

said   premises,   the   room   which   is   pleaded   in   the   present

application   was  given  to  the  defendants when his daughter

came for delivery.   Perusal of Exhibit no.20 shows that the

daughter of defendants came for delivery in the year 2008.

Thus, from the year 1998 i.e. when oral Agreement to sell was

pleaded   to   have   been   entered   into   between   plaintiffs   and

defendants,   the   room   in   question   was   in   possession   of   the

plaintiffs.     Therefore,   the   Almirah   in   which   the   original

agreement is pleaded to have been kept was within the reach

of plaintiffs.   The plaintiffs have also pleaded about room in

question in his previous application (Exhibit no.20) i.e. it was

given  to  defendants when  daughter of defendants came for

delivery.     Thus,   the   plaintiffs   have   knowledge   about   the

Almirah being in the said room for about 10 years i.e. from

oral agreement in the year 1998 upto the year 2008 i.e. when

the said room was given to defendant no.1 when his daughter
 5 S.C.S.No.1/2016
Latabai & others /Rambhau & others

came for delivery.  It is also pleaded in Exhibit no.20 that son

of plaintiffs found the xerox copy when his son made efforts

to find out the copy of the agreement.   This also shows that

efforts were made by the son of the plaintiffs to find out the

agreement and necessarily therefore he might have searched

the Almirah in question.   Therefore, the amendment sought

that   the   agreement   was   kept   in   the   Almirah   is   an   after

thought  and is nothing but an attempt to fill in the lacuna of

his case.  The same may adversely affect the defendants in as

much as, plaintiffs had an opportunity to search the Almirah

and   now   when   the   Almirah   is   in   the   room   which   is   in

possession of defendants, plaintiffs have cropped­up with the

story   that   in   the   said   Almirah   original   agreement   is   kept.

Under   such   circumstances,   the   amendment   to   the   extent

proposed   to   be   made   through   para   no.3   in   the   present

application   cannot   be   allowed.     In   view   of   the   above,   the

application is partly allowed and  following order is passed

ORDER
 6 S.C.S.No.1/2016
Latabai & others /Rambhau & others

1] Application (Exhibit no.78) is partly allowed without cost.

2] Plaintiffs are directed to carry out the amendment within 14 
days from today and to file amended copy of plaint forthwith
thereafter.

   Nagpur.            (A.V.Dhuldhule)