PIYUSH RASTOGI Vs. RAVINDRA KOHLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the orders dated 8.4.2015 and 6.5.2015 on the amendment applications no. 36 ka and 77 ga filed under Order VI Rule 7 C.P.C.

(3.) The brief facts relevant to decide the present writ petition are that an amendment application was filed by the respondent landlord on 21.3.2013 to make amendment in the release application in view of the assertions made in paragraph-10 of the written statement, with regard to new constructions raised by the landlord on the first floor of the premises in question. The amendment application was allowed on 23.7.2013 by a short order on the ground that the amendments are formal in nature. Aggrieved the petitioner filed writ petition no.53400 of 2013 wherein order dated 23.7.2013 was quashed on the ground that no reason has been assigned by the court below for allowing the amendment. It was not recorded as to how the amendments are necessary. The matter was remanded back to the court below to decide afresh .