BRIJKISHOR NEEKHARA ADVOCATE Vs. HARI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

(3.) By the impugned order dated 3.3.2017 the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was rejected on the ground that the evidence has been concluded and the case is fixed for final hearing and it appears that the application has been filed for delaying the matter. The aforesaid order of the trial court was affirmed in S.C.C. revision filed by the petitioner. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that specific averments have been made in the written statement but the relevant allotment order dated 22.10.1964 specifying the premises in possession of the tenant petitioner could not be placed on record, which is necessary for deciding real controversy between the parties and that a liberal approach in allowing amendment in written statement should be adopted and that delay is no ground for refusal of prayer for amendment of written statement. Hence the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and amendment should be permitted.