N S CONSTRUCTION Vs. SOM DEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. At request of Jearned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. The respondent filed a suit for recovery against the petitioners. The petitioners were granted a construction contract by M/s. Peico Electronics and Electrical Ltd. and some part of the work was sub-contracted to the respondent. The grievance of the respondent was that the petitioners had obtained good rates from M/s. Peico Electronics and Electrical Ltd. and were not giving adequate compensation for the work carried out by the respondent.

(2.) The suit for recovery was filed by the respondent in the year 1987. The written statement was filed in the year 1988. The respondent amended the plaint in terms of the orders dated 18.8.1992 and issues were framed in the year 1995. Thereafter testimony of the witnesses of both the sides was recorded and it is stated that even arguments were heard and written synopsis filed. It is at that stage that the respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151, CPC seeking to amend the plaint. The application has been allowed in terms of the impugned order dated 22.11.2006 of the learned Additional District Judge which is now assailed by the petitioner in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the amendment sought for by the respondent arises from the allegation that the rates at which Peico paid the petitioners were unknown to the respondent till such time as the cross-examination of the witness of the defendant took place in August, 2002. It is only thereafter that the respondent came to know of the high rates granted to the petitioner which could form the basis or material for determination of the claim of the respondent. The amendment paragraph incorporates this allegation and thereafter sets forth the rates of which the petitioner got the benefit.