NAVEEN GARG Vs. RAJRANI GARG AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.21398/2014

(2.) At the outset we note that the pleading in para 6 of the appeal that on September 29, 2014 the appellant had filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 to amend the plaint is not borne out from the record of the suit. No such application is to be found in the suit record. Learned counsel for the appellant has been told to identify the application in the suit record if at all any was filed. Counsel does not even make an attempt to identify the application. The reason is obvious. None exists.

(3.) That apart, the copy of the application seeking amendment of the written statement filed by the appellant which has been filed along with the appeal shows that it was sent to learned counsel for the plaintiff on September 30, 2014. We say so for the reason the photocopy of the postal receipt on the index of the application bears the date September 30, 2014. Thus, the application could not be even otherwise before the learned Single Judge when the impugned order was passed on October 30, 2014 allowing IA No.14691/2014 filed by the respondents and passing a decree for possession against the appellant on October 30, 2014. The impugned order does not record that counsel for the appellant made a request for hearing to be deferred stating that the appellant, impleaded as defendant No.1 in the suit, wanted to amend the written statement.