HIMALAYA BUILDERS PVT. LTD Vs. SHRIJI BUILDERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Rivonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) THE above Petition challenges an Order dated 05.03.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, at Panaji, whereby an application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, filed by the Petitioner, came to be rejected.

(3.) SHRI Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, pointed out that the said documents were not produced by the Respondents before the learned Trial Court. Learned Counsel also strongly disputes the contention of the Respondents that the said Memorandum of Understanding was obtained by coercion and fraud. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the terms of the said Memorandum of Understanding itself discloses the falsity of the allegations of the Respondents. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as the documents have not been brought to the notice of the learned Trial Court, the question of allowing them to produced in this Court would not arise. Learned Counsel further pointed out that Respondents are always entitled to file a written statement disputing the allegations made by the Petitioner in the amended plaint. Shri Agha, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has pointed out that the amendment is a pre-trial amendment and, as such, it is well settled that such amendments are to be liberally granted. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has relied upon the Judgments of the Apex Court reported in (2002) 7 S.C.C. 559 in the case of Sampath Kumar vs. Ayyakannu & anr. and AIR 2003 Karnataka 393 in the case of C. R. Janardhan vs. Smt. N. S. Vinutha & anr.