RAJ KUMAR GROVER Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE HARIDWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Head learned Coun sel for the parties and also perused the record.

(2.) IN the case, counter and rejoinder-affidavit have already been filed. The case is ripe for hearing, therefore, as desired by learned Counsel for the parties, I have heard this petition and the same is being disposed of finally by means of this judgment.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Appellate Authority has acted illegally in dismissing the amendment application. According to him, the amendment sought by the petitioner was necessary for resolving the controversy involved in the case, the same, therefore, should have been allowed. On the other hand, Mr. VK. S. Chowdhary, Senior Advocate, vehemently urged that the application filed by the petitioner was wholly mala fide, the same was filed with a view to delay the disposal of the case. It was contended that the petitioner clearly and unequivocally admitted before the Prescribed Authority that the Respondent No. 2 was the landlord of the building in question and that petitioner has been paying the rent of the same to him there fore, there was no justification for him at the appellate stage to contend that some other persons were also the co-landlords. It was also urged that the amendment sought by the petitioner in the written statement/objection was not necessary for resolving the controversy involved in the case. The petitioner wanted to resile from the admission which was made by him before the Prescribed Authority.