KRISHNAJI SHANKAR MOGHE Vs. SITARAM GANGADHAR SHENDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records. Rule. By consent the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 31st January, 2002 passed by the III additional District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal no. 412 of 2001. By the impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of his original application for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises. The dismissal has been on the ground that by the proposed amendment, the petitioner is trying the produce further evidence which was not brought on record by the petitioner when he had opportunity to produce the same.

(3.) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submitted that the petitioner by an application under order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code has proposed to amend the original application for eviction by bringing on record certain events which had occurred subsequent to the filing of the proceedings as they are material for the just decision in the matter in relation to the dispute between the parties. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that there is inordinate delay in filing the application for amendment of the pleadings and inspite of the fact that at the time of examination of his son before the trial court, the petitioner had ample opportunity to bring the said facts on record, yet the same are sought to be brought on record only after disposal of the proceedings by the trial Court and when the matter is pending before the lower Appellate Court and being so, no fault can be found with the impugned order dismissing the application for amendment filed by the petitioner.