T D PADALIA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is admitted.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been pre ferred for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 15-4-2000 and 14-10-1999 passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively (Annexure Nos. 8 and 7 respectively ). By the order dated 15-4-2000, the ap plication for amendment of written state ment/counter claim under Order 6, Rule 17 C. P. C. (paper no. 265-A) filed by the defendant-respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 250/- and the objection of the plaintiffs paper no. 268-C has been rejected. By the order dated 15-4- 2000 the revision preferred by the petitioner-plaintiffs has been rejected by the District Judge Nainital.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the plaintiff-petitioners preferred revision (Civil Revision No. 21 of 1999) before the District Judge, Nainital, on the ground that the applicant-defendants had disclosed their defence and as such the cause of action in respect of which the counter-claim has been sought by paper no. 265-Ka was in the knowledge of the defendants from the very begin ning and the application was barred by the provisions of Order 8, Rule 6-A of the C. R. C. It was also contended that the trial court failed to exercise the ju risdiction vested in it by law by not re jecting the amendment application to amend the written statement of the re spondent nos. 3 to 5 at a highly belated stage when the statements of the plain tiffs had already been recorded in the suit.