witnesses of the plaintiff, the prese n t application was filed see k ing amendm e nt of the plaint to the effect t hat the amount was borrowed by defendan t Nos.2 to 4 in the year 2004 an d not in 2008. [3] The application was contest e d by the defendants, claiming t hat the suit i s based upon falsehood . T h e plaintiff at his convenienc e is changing his stand repeatedly. Not only the trial has commenced, but e v en the plai n tiff has deposed claiming th a t the money was borrowed by defendan t s in the year 2008. At this sta g e, allowing the plaintiff to alter his stand wo u ld lead to de novo trial. [4] The Trial Court dismissed t h e application holding that the t rial has alrea d y commenced. Though the p laintiff claims that the averm e nts made in t h e plaint with respect to borrow i ng of money in the year 2008 t o be a typogr a phical error, which needs to b e corrected, but even in the l e gal notice (E x hibit P-1) issued at the behest of the plaintiff, it was claimed t hat the amo u nt was borrowed in the yea r 2008. Trial Court accordi n gly dismisse d the application filed by the plaintiff. [5] I have heard counsel for t h e parties and have carefully g o ne through r e cord(s) of the case. [6] It is an admitted fact t h at on the basis of the dishono u red cheque d a ted 01.06.2008, plaintiff filed a complaint under Section 138 o f the Negotiab l e Instruments Act, 1881 agai n st father of defendant Nos.2 t o 4, namely S i lak Ram. Statement of the plai n tiff was recorded on 10.05.201 2 in the comp l aint case. In the said complain t , complainant testified that he s old land to o n e Jai Narain on 08.07.2004 an d , on the same day, lent an am o unt RAJNEESH SHARMA of ₹ 8,24, 0 00/- to defendant-Silak Ram. T hus, the stand of the plaintiff e v en 2026.05.27 18:14 I agree to specified portions of this document
