ANIL JOSEPH RAWADE Vs. BENJAMIN PREMANAND RAWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges order passed by the Court below allowing the respondent to lead further evidence, documentary as well as oral, and allowing the application for amendment to the pleadings relating to defence filed by the respondent in the trial Court. THE orders are dated 7th December, 1998 and 18th February, 1999 passed in eviction application No. 395-E of 1972 by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai.

(3.) ON the other hand, while disputing the maintainability of the Revision Application, the learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Prem Bakshi Vs. Dharam Dev reported in (2002) 2 SCC 2 allowing parties to amend the pleadings would not amount to final disposal of the matter, and the order allowing amendment cannot be said to result any failure of justice or cause any irreparable injury to the opposite party and in the absence of satisfaction of the conditions stipulated in the sub-section (1) of Section 115 of the C. P. C. the High Court would not be justified in interfering in the impugned order. It was further submitted that the application for amendment is apparently in relation to the events which have occurred after institution of the proceedings by the petitioner against the respondent, as well as after conclusion of recording of evidence in the matter before the trial Court, and the events referred to in the proposed amendment relates to the year 1983. Similarly, the documents which are sought to be produced are also in relation to the events which occurred since the year 1983 onwards and those being the subsequent events, the Court is empowered to take note of the same, provided they are brought on record by way of amendment and the evidence in support of the amended pleadings in that regard being placed on record. As regards the contention that the application is belated it was sought to be argued that the matter was all throughout pending before the High Court and it was only after conclusion of the proceedings before the Apex Court, that the respondent had opportunity to place on record before the trial Court, the subsequent events, and viewed from this angle, it cannot be said that there was any delay on the part of the respondent in seeking amendment and leave to produce further evidence in the matter.