KEDAR RAMAKANT KAKODKAR Vs. AUDUTH TIMBLO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Rajendra Pai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. The above petition challenges an order passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Panaji in Special Civil Suit No.90/2007/B dated 16/02/2012 disposing of Exhibit 47 and Exhibit 41. The respondent filed an application at Exhibit 47 praying inter alia that the application under Order 6 Rule of the Civil Procedure Code filed by him should be decided first before proceeding to consider the application under Order 7 Rule filed by the petitioner.

(2.) ON the other hand, an application at Exhibit 41 was filed by the petitioner praying inter alia that the application under Order 7 Rule of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the petitioner be decided first.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri S.D. Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has pointed out that the question of going into the merits of the amendment application would not arise. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order has categorically held that the question as to whether the amendment is to be allowed or is necessary for deciding the matter in controversy will have to be decided whilst deciding the application under Order 6 Rule of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that in case the application under Order 7 Rule is taken up for consideration before deciding the application under Order 6 Rule of the Civil Procedure Code great injustice shall occasion to the respondent as according to him the application under Order 6 Rule would become infructuous, if such exercise is carried out. The learned Senior Counsel, as such, submits that no jurisdictional error is committed by the learned Judge whilst passing the impugned order which calls for interference by this Court.