LAWS(CHH)-2009-2-23

ASHARANI GUPTA Vs. SIDDHARTH SHUKLA

Decided On February 06, 2009
ASHARANI GUPTA Appellant
V/S
SIDDHARTH SHUKLA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 17. 10. 2006 (Annexure P/8) passed by the 4th additional District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 4-A/2005, whereby the application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `the CPC') (Annexure P/6) for amendment of the plaint, has been rejected.

(2.) THE facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a civil suit being No. 4-A/2005 (Annexure P/1), for eviction and permanent injunction stating that the plot No. 85 was allotted by the Bhilai steel Plant in the name of husband of the plaintiff No. 1 i. e. Late Dr. Mahaveer Singh Gupta, upon which the Dr. Gupta constructed a building and started a clinic. The said clinic was being run jointly by Dr. Gupta and one Dr. Smt. Usha shukla, after taking permission from Bhilai Steel Plant. After the death of Dr. Gupta, his wife made an application to the Bhilai Steel Plant for carrying out another business in the said building. Dr. Usha Shukla was allowed to continue her clinic in the said building till the application for change of business was allowed. Thereafter, the petitioners/plaintiffs, at several occasions, asked Dr. Shukla to remove her belongings kept in the said building. The respondent/defendant took the key from the petitioners stating that he shall remove all the belongings kept in the building but he did not returned the said key. The petitioners/plaintiffs sent a notice through their Advocate to the respondent/defendant on 7. 2. 2005 stating therein that the respondent/defendant must return the key within 7 days of the receipt of the notice. Since the respondent/defendant did not return the key, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the above-stated suit.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the suit, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of the CPC (Annexure P/2 ). The said application was allowed. The respondent/defendant filed his written statement on 04. 05. 2005 (Annexure P/3 ). The petitioners/plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the CPC for grant of temporary injunction, which was allowed by the trial court on 27. 5. 2006 (Annexure P/4 ). Thereafter, on 19. 6. 2006, the petitioners/plaintiffs again filed an application under order 6 Rule 17 for amendment in the plaint (Annexure P/6 ). The respondent/defendant replied to the said application on 5. 8. 2006 (Annexure P/7 ). The learned Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, rejected the said application vide order dated 17. 10. 2006 (Annexure P/8 ). Hence, this petition.