P KUMARI Vs. NDMC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 15.5.2001 by which an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure moved on behalf of the defendant-respondent/NDMC seeking amendment of written statement has been allowed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to the present revision are that the petitioners herein had filed a suit for declaration that they are the lessees of the defendant in respect to respective shops in Palika Bazar and in the alternative their licence had been renewed on or about 29.10.1983 and the defendants were estopped from imposing any fresh terms and conditions and also for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-NDMC from taking any action with respect to the cancellation of the licence and dispossession of the plaintiffs from the shops in question. The suit was initially filed in the High Court and was contested by the defendant and trial also proceeded in the High Court untill it reached at its fag end i.e. final arguments stage when it stood transferred to the District Court consequent upon the enlargement of the pecuniary Jurisdiction of District Courts, when the matter was pending before the Additional District Judge for arguments, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure was made on behalf of the respondent-defendant-NDMC on 24/1/2001 seeking permission to amend the written statement more particularly to add following two objections as preliminary objections No.8 & 9 :-

(3.) The application was opposed on behalf of the plaintiffs, inter alia, on the ground that the amendment application was highly belated having been filed at the fag end of the trial after a lapse of 15 years; allowing the application at that stage would cause serious prejudice to the plaintiffs since a vested right had already accrued in favour of the plaintiffs by not raising the proposed objections in the written statement and it also amounted to waiver of the right of the defendant-NDMC with regard to the service of statutory notice. Yet another objection was that the defendant is estopped from raising the above objection/pleas by way of amendment. It was also disputed that the suit premises were public premises within the meaning of Public Premises Act. Learned trial court on a consideration of the matter has allowed the application and permitted the petitioner to incorporate the said objections in the written statement primarily on the view that the same is necessary for just and proper adjudication of the question in controversy and that the law with regard to the amendment of pleadings is liberal and more tilted in favour of allowing the amendment rather than refusing the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiffs have filed the present revision.