Today is fixed for amendment petition hearing.

That the complainant stated that in the complainant petition, she purchased one set Kurthi and pajama of   Rs. 500/- only from shop of opposite party Vimal Purbarag on 02.08.0222 for her husband being bill No. 1596.

That on 10.10.2022 husband of complainant in went function wearing the above mentioned Kurti. But after that moment the said kurti was being unstitched and complainant was very embarrassing and left the function.

In amendment petition complainant stated that she purchased one set of Kurti and Pajama Rs. 500/- only from the shop of opposite party Vimal Purbarag on 02.08. 22 for herself being bill No. 1596. But, in complainant petition she stated that she purchased  kurti and pajama for her husband.

OP No. 1 and 2 file W. O. against this amendment petition and strong objection. After heard the both parties we    the commission find that in complainant petition stated that she purchased kurti and pajama for her husband   but in amendment petition it reverse means for herself.

In Usha Balashaheb Swami and other ors  Kiran  Appaso Swami  and others ( 2007 ) 5 SCC 602 The court in has held ,addiction made in pleading and particularly in the complainant cannot be sought  to be omitted or got rid of  as stated . The court further observation that a prayer for amending of the plaintiff stand on different footing. The reliance observation of the court are set out under “ …….  a prayer  for    amendment of the  plaint and  a prayer  for amendment of the written statements stand  on  different  footings.  The general principle that amending of pleadings cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute cause of action or nature of claim applies to amendments to   plaint.” The General Principal that amendment of pleading cannot be allowed so as to alter materially or substitute the cause of action and the nature of claim applies to amendment to plaint.

In pursuhottam Umedbhai   & Co. v. Manilal   & sons if a  plaintiff seeks to alter the cause of action itself  and amendment of his pleadings an entirely new  or and  inconsistent  cause of action , amounting  virtually to the substitution  of a  new plaint or a new cause of action in place of what  was originally there, the court will refused to permit it.

In Haridas Aildas Thadani and Ors. Vs Godraj  Rustom Kermain  case,  it is well settled that court should  be extremely liberal in granting  payer for amendment  of pleading unless   serious  injustice or irreparable  loss  is caused  to the other side. It is also clear that Revisional   Court ought not to   be lightly interfering with a discretion exercised in allowing amendment in absence of cogent reasons or compelling and circumstances.

Hence, that the amendment petition is rejected.

Subsequently the original case is rejected due to inherent defect in the complaint petition.

Hence, the case is disposed of.