NARENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. PREM NARAIN PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause Court, Jhansi passed on Application No. 38 A-1 filed under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure filed in P.A. Case No. 20 of 2007 Prem Narain v. . Narendra Kumar has been challenged. By the impugned order, the Judge Small Cause Court has rejected the petitioner's amendment application on the ground that petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings as on earlier occasion the petitioner has filed an application for spot inspection and that application was allowed but the petitioner has not deposited the required cost and hence spot inspection was not made and on the same facts the present amendment application has been filed with a view to delay the proceeding of the case.

(2.) Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before the Court that the findings recorded by the court below in this regard is perverse as the alleged construction was made in the year 2009 whereas the application for spot inspection was moved in the year 2007.

(3.) Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner himself has stated in the written statement that the House No. 601 is a placial building consisting of three stories and there are several rooms and it was for the petitioner to prove the same. In his submissions the petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings of the release application and learned Prescribed Authority has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner.