SUSHILA UMESH KARN Vs. NATASHA D SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Sardessai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Noronha, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) RULE. By consent, heard forthwith.

(3.) MR. Sardessai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in dismissing the two applications seeking amendment which were of formal nature and no new case was set up by the proposed amendment. According to MR. Sardessai the trial Court has misconstrued the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C and has erred in holding that the trial of the suit had already begun. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have allowed both the applications for amendment and in any case the application for amendment of the counter claim ought to have been allowed since affidavit of evidence was filed prior to framing of additional issues in view of the counter claim filed by the defendants. In support of his submissions, MR. Sardessai relied upon the following judgments: