SUMITA PRADIPKUMAR DIXIT Vs. PUSHPADEVI G MAKHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner challenges the order dated 29.8.09 passed in RC Suit No. 187/99 vide which the applications filed by the present Petitioner for amendment of written statement and counter claim below Exhs. 223 and 225 came to be rejected.

(2.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed a suit against Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for possession of the suit premises. On 27.3.2000 Respondent No. 5 filed written statement contesting the claim of the Plaintiff. On 7.4.2001 the Respondent No. 5 filed an affidavit and pursis submitting to the decree of evidence in favour of Respondents 1 to 4. On 30.2.2001 the Petitioner filed an application for joining herself as party-Defendant to the said suit. Vide order dated 1.11.2001 learned trial Court rejected the said application. The Petitioner being aggrieved thereby had approached this Court by Civil Revision Application No. 24/2002 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 26.1.2002. On being joined as party-Defendant to the said suit the Petitioner filed written statement and counter claim on 16.12.2002 inter alia seeking declaration that the Petitioner was lawful tenant of the suit premises and in the alternate for declaration that she had become "irrevocable licensee" in respect of suit premises. On 30.3.2002 the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement to the counter claim of the Petitioner. On 18.4.2009 Petitioner filed an application for amendment to the written statement (below Ex.223) and for amendment to the counter claim (below Ex.225). Said application was resisted by Respondents 1 to 4. By the impugned order dated 29.8.2009 the said application was rejected. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Heard Shri Samdani, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Ganu, learned Counsel for Respondents. Since an important question as to whether amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 as amended by 2002 Amendment to the Code of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment Act 2002) are applicable to the pleadings filed before the date on which the said amendment came into effect or to the suit filed prior to the said date is involved in the present matter, Shri Dani learned Counsel was requested to act as amicus curiae to assist the Court.