RAMESH AGRAWAL Vs. KAVITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order impugned in this writ petition the petitioner's, who is a tenant-appellant in Appeal No. 100 of 2009, application for amendment has been rejected by court below on the ground that amendment is wholly unwarranted and has been filed with an objective to delay the proceedings. The court below has relied on Apex Court's decision in Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and sons and others, 2009 (1) SCC 84 .

(2.) Having gone through the impugned judgment, I find no reason to interfere. Learned counsel for the petitioner also could not show that amendment fall within the ground mentioned in Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. read with authority of Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders and Developers (supra) where in paras 66, 67 and 70 of judgment of Apex Court clearly held that if the application for amendment lacks bona fide or cause prejudice to other side which cannot be compensated or where the averments fundamentally change the nature of case, it should be refused.

(3.) In these circumstances and considering the entire order impugned in this writ petition, I find no manifest error in exercise of power by court below in rejecting petitioner's application. No interference is called for.