LALITKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA Vs. SAVITABEN AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the present petitioner - original plaintiff by challenging the impugned order dtd. 15/9/2023 passed below Exh.87 application in H.R.P. Civil Suit No.317 of 2015 by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court Ahmedabad, Court No.6, whereby the same was allowed, which was filed by the plaintiff for amendment.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the case of the petitioner in this petition are that the respondents, namely, Gunvantbhai Raval, who was the tenant of the petitioner in respect of the property situated at Ahmedabad city, Usmanpura, Mouje Wadaj, TP Scheme No.15, Final Plot No.18, Shree Niketan Cooperative Housing Society, Sub-Plot No.2, was given on rent. Since the deceased Gunvantbhai Raval did not pay the municipal tax and other amount of rent, he became tenant in arrears and, therefore, the present petitioner has filed HRP Civil Suit No.317 of 2015 before the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad against the present defendants on 14/5/2015. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that originally, the suit was filed against Savitaben and Sons (Sandip Provision Raval Store), partner Gunvantbhai service. Upon summons on 30/9/2015, the written statement was filed and issues has been framed. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted the deposition on 7/5/2016 and cross-examination of the petitioner was over on 11/1/2017. Thereafter, on 14/4/2017, said Gunvantbhai Raval passed away and on 18/7/2017, the legal heirs of deceased Gunvantbhai Raval had been brought on record, who are the defendants and respondent Nos.1/1 to 1/4 herein. The respondent No.1/1 is the widowed wife, respondent No.1/2/3 are the sons and respondent No.1/4 is married daughter. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition are as such that after the demise of the defendant Gunvantbhai Raval and the legal heirs had been brought on record, and on 25/6/2018, the petitioner filed an application contending that two issues are to be added to the issues already framed and, therefore, an application was filed. To the aforesaid application, no reply was filed and on 25/9/2018, the same had been rejected.

(3.) Heard Mr. Baiju Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vasim Mansuri, the learned counsel for the respondents.