SATISH KUMAR Vs. SMT.KALYANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Km. Madhurima Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The facts of the case have already been set forth by this Court in detail vide order dtd. 13/11/2018, which order for convenience, is reproduced as under:-

(3.) From the perusal of the aforesaid order and the facts as indicated in the writ petition, it emerges that in the year 2007, the respondent filed Regular Suit No.249/2007 (Smt. Kalyani Devi. Vs. Satish Kumar.) for declaring her the sole and absolute owner of the house and for permanent injunction. The suit was heard and the judgment was reserved on 3/2/2018. On 6/2/2018, an application for amendment was filed by the respondent herein, who was the plaintiff in the said suit, praying for certain amendments, a copy of which application is annexed as Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. Objections were filed by the petitioner, who was the defendant before the Court below, on various grounds including the ground that the amendment is sought to be filed after judgment has been reserved and that the amendment was belated and no due diligence has been indicated as to why the amendment application was being filed after about 10 years. By the order dtd. 9/4/2018 a copy of which is Annexure No.9 to the petition, the amendment application was taken on record. While taking on record, the Court below has specifically observed that the amendment application is being listed for hearing and both the parties shall come prepared to advance the arguments on 25/4/2018 on two points namely, (1) Whether allowing the application for amendment, would amount to retrial of the suit, and, (2) Whether due diligence has been shown by the plaintiff in filing the application for amendment belatedly.