DINESH KUMAR SWARUP Vs. HARISH CHAWLA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 20th May, 2010 whereby the learned Additional District Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. seeking amendment of written statement. The main grievance of the Petitioner is not the amendment of Paras 12 and 13 of the Written Statement but the additional plea taken wherein the defendant has sought a prayer that the relief of possession cannot be granted against only one co -tenant, the other co -tenant, whose name has already been deleted, is required to be added. The contention of the Petitioner is that once the name of the co -tenant has been directed to be deleted by a court -order dated 25th May, 2006, this additional plea is not permitted.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for adjudication of the matter are:

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this, the present petition has been filed on the grounds that the learned Additional District Judge erred in allowing the amendment to written statement after a period of 8 years of the pendency of the suit and after 2 rounds of litigation, after framing of the issues and also after the dismissal of application filed by the defendants/respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.