SATISH KUMAR JAIN Vs. RAJ SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking to set aside order dated 27th August, 2007 passed in Suit No. 802/2006 whereby Additional District Judge has dismissed petitioner's two applications filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11 cpc respectively. Relevant observations in the impugned order are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner contended that by way of his amendment application, petitioner/defendant was only seeking elaboration of his defence by incorporating a legal plea that trial court had no jurisdiction to try respondent/plaintiffs suit. He further submitted that trial court should have rejected respondent/plaintiffs plaint and allowed petitioner/defendant's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as respondent/defendant's suit did not disclose any cause of action.

(3.) I am of the opinion that as neither the objection relating to jurisdiction of trial Court nor the fact of payment of rent was taken in the initial written statement or in the reply to legal notice, the same cannot be allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment in the written statement and that too, after trial has commenced. In my view, application for amendment in the present case was not an elaboration of defence set up by petitioner/defendant as suggested by petitioner's Counsel, but was an attempt to wriggle out of an admission by amending his pleading u which is clearly impermissible in law.