FURKAN ABDULGAFUR KHILJI Vs. MOHAMMADSAFI ABDULHAMID CHUNAMASTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONSIDERING the averments made in the note for speaking to minutes dated 1.4.2013, this speaking to minutes is allowed. Paragraph 5 of the order dated 4.3.2013 passed in this petition be read as under:

(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the learned Small Causes Court No.5, Ahmedabad below application Exh.31 in H.R.P.Suit No.10 of 2010. During the pendency of the suit being H.R.P.Suit No.10 of 2010, present petitioner ­ original plaintiff has submitted application Exh.24 for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure and said application was allowed by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner has also filed application Exh. 27 for extension of injunction order, however, said application was rejected. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Revision Application No.2 of 2010 which is pending before the learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad and therefore, petitioner could not carry out the amendment. As the petitioner could not carry out the amendment as per the order passed by the Trial Court below application Exh.24, the petitioner submitted application Exh.31 with a prayer to give permission to amend the plaint. The said application is rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 10.12.2012. Hence, this petition.

(3.) THIS Court has gone through the application Exh.31 as well as order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Trial Court. This Court has perused the application Exh.31, nothing is mentioned in the application which shows that prima facie sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay and allowing the petitioner to amend the plaint. Be that as it may.