SANJAI KUMAR Vs. WAQF CHAMAROO SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the orders dated 16.9.2009 and the order dated 18.2.2006 (Annexures-7 and 5 to the writ petition) by which an amendment application filed by the petitioner in a suit pending before the Judge Small Causes Court has been rejected. The revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the averment made in the application for amendment, it does not change the nature of the suit or no new pleading has been stated by way of filing the amendment application. In the written statement filed by the petitioner a specific averment has already been made that Smt. Jainab Sakina is not a Mutwalli and has no right to sign the plaint. But in spite of the aforesaid fact, the said application has been rejected. He has stated that the plaintiff has got no right or title to file the suit.

(3.) FURTHER reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court ren­dered in the case of Olympic Industries v. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally 6 Ors. reported in JT2009 (12) SC 545 and reliance has been placed upon para